https://myintracomm.ec.eur opa.eu/dg/eac/w ork-tool s/external-communi cation/visual-identity/Pages/visual-identity.aspx
FEASIBILITY STUDY ON POSSIBLE FUTURE MOBILITY MEASURES FOR SPORT IN EU
FINAL REPORT
STUDY CARRIED OUT BY A CONSORTIUM COMPOSED OF THREE ORGANISATIONS: Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) - Olympic Chair Management of Sports Organisations European Observatoire of Sport and Employment (EOSE) Sport and Citizenship (S&C)
Contract Number – EAC-2013-0136 (Tender EAC/20/2012)
PROGRESS REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ...... 5
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... 7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 9
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ...... 19
1.1 OVERVIEW ...... 19
1.2 POLICY CONTEXT – THE CONCEPT OF LEARNING MOBILITY...... 20
CHAPTER 2 - THE WORKING METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE OF THE WORK...... 22
2.1 WORKING METHODOLOGY ...... 22
2.2 SCOPE OF THE WORK ...... 24
2.3 EXPECTED OUTCOMES ...... 26
CHAPTER 3 – ANALYSIS OF THE ACCESSIBILITY TO MOBILITY THROUGH CURRENT EU FUNDED PROGRAMMES ...... 27
3.1 DETAILED ACTION PLAN AND WORK ACHIEVED ...... 27
3.2 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS ...... 28
CHAPTER 4 – MAPPING EXERCICE ON THE NEEDS AND BENEFITS OF MOBILITY IN SPORT ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 42
4.1 DETAILED ACTION PLAN AND WORK ACHIEVED ...... 42
4.2 OVERALL NUMBER OF RESPONSES ...... 45 4.2.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONSES ...... 45 4.2.2 TYPE OF ORGANISATIONS ...... 46 4.2.3 POSITION OF THE RESPONDENTS ...... 46 4.2.4 EUROPEAN AND NATIONAL SPORT FEDERATIONS (N = 232) ...... 47
4.3 AWARENESS AND INVOLVEMENT IN EU FUNDED MOBILITY OPPORTUNITIES ...... 49 4.3.1 AWARENESS AND INVOLVEMENT ...... 49 4.3.2 MAIN FINDINGS FROM ORGANISATIONS INVOLVED IN PREVIOUS EU MOBILITY ACTIVITIES ...... 52 4.3.3 REASONS FOR “AWARENESS BUT NO INVOLVEMENT” IN PREVIOUS EU FUNDED MOBILITY ...... 57 4.3.4 AWARENESS OF ANY OTHER NON EU FUNDED LEARNING MOBILITY OPPORTUNITIES ...... 58
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 2
4.4 RESPONSES FROM SPORT MINISTRIES ...... 60 4.4.1 NUMBER OF RESPONSES ...... 60 4.4.2 AWARENESS OF EU FUNDED LEARNING MOBILITY ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT IN THE SECTOR ...... 61 4.4.3 SPORT MINISTRIES PROVIDING NATIONAL FUNDING FOR LEARNING MOBILITY ACTIVITIES ...... 61 4.4.4 SPORT MINISTRIES PROVIDING SUPPORT AND HELP TO INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANISATIONS ...... 62
4.5 SHAPING THE FUTURE OF EU LEARNING MOBILITY OPPORTUNITIES ...... 63 4.5.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATION ...... 63 4.5.2 SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION TO “KEY ROLES” WITHIN THE SPORT SECTOR ...... 66
CHAPTER 5 – MAPPING EXERCICE ON THE NEEDS AND BENEFITS OF MOBILITY IN SPORT NATIONAL CONSULTATION ...... 75
5.1 DETAILED ACTION PLAN AND WORK ACHIEVED ...... 75 5.1.1 DETAILED ACTION PLAN ...... 75 5.1.2 WORK COMPLETED ...... 75
5.2 RESULTS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ...... 75 5.2.1 BELGIUM NATIONAL CONSULTATION ...... 76 5.2.2 FINLAND NATIONAL CONSULTATION ...... 82 5.2.3 FRENCH NATIONAL CONSULTATION ...... 84 5.2.4 GERMAN NATIONAL CONSULTATION ...... 97 5.2.5 ITALIAN NATIONAL CONSULTATION ...... 101 5.2.6 LITHUANIAN NATIONAL CONSULTATION ...... 103 5.2.7 SPANISH NATIONAL CONSULTATION ...... 106 5.2.8 UNITED KINGDOM NATIONAL CONSULTATION ...... 116
CHAPTER 6 – ANALYSIS OF THE ACCESSIBILITY TO MOBILITY WITH THE NEW ERASMUS+ AND EUROPE FOR CITIZENS PROGRAMMES (2014-2020) ...... 126
6.1 DETAILED ACTION PLAN AND WORK ACHIEVED ...... 126
6.2 THE NEW ERASMUS+ PROGRAMME 2014-2020 ...... 126 6.2.1 OVERVIEW ...... 126 6.2.2 STRUCTURE OF THE ERASMUS+ PROGRAMME ...... 128 6.2.3 COUNTRIES ELIGIBLE ...... 129 6.2.4 GUIDELINES FOR FUNDING UNDER ERASMUS+ ...... 130 6.2.5 THE SPORT CHAPTER ...... 140 6.2.6 SUMMARY ...... 141
6.3 THE NEW EUROPE FOR CITIZENS PROGRAMME 2014-2020 ...... 143 6.3.1 OVERVIEW ...... 143 6.3.2 MAIN FUNDED STRANDS AND ACTIONS...... 144
CHAPTER 7 – COMPLETING THE CONSULTATION PROCESS - WORKSHOP ...... 148
7.1 WORK COMPLETED ...... 148
7.2 PARTICIPANTS TO THE WORKSHOP ...... 148
7.3 DISCUSSION ON THE MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 149
7.4 STARTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 149
7.5 LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE WORKSHOP ...... 151
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 3
CHAPTER 8 – CONCLUSIONS ...... 152
8.1 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ...... 152 8.1.1 EVIDENCE OF DEMAND...... 152 8.1.2 BARRIERS TO TAKE UP ...... 153
8.2 CONCLUSIONS IN RELATION TO EU FUNDED PROGRAMMES (LLP 2007-2013) ...... 155 8.2.1 LEONARDO DA VINCI ...... 155 8.2.2 ERASMUS ...... 157 8.2.3 YOUTH IN ACTION ...... 158
8.3 CONCLUSIONS IN RELATIONS TO OLYMPIC PROGRAMMES ...... 158
8.4 CONCLUSIONS PER CATEGORIES ...... 159 8.4.1 NON-PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES ...... 159 8.4.2 COACHES IN NON-FOR-PROFIT SPORT ORGANISATIONS ...... 161 8.4.3 STAFF EMPLOYED IN NON-FOR-PROFIT SPORT ORGANISATIONS ...... 162 8.4.4 VOLUNTEERS IN NON-FOR-PROFIT SPORT ORGANISATIONS (OTHER THAN COACHES) ...... 163
8.5 THE WAY AHEAD THROUGH THE ERASMUS+ SPORT CHAPTER ...... 164
CHAPTER 9 – RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOBILITY MEASURES FOR SPORT IN EU ...... 165
ANNEXES ...... 177
REFERENCES ...... 178
This Study was funded by the Directorate-General for Education and Culture of the European Commission. The opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the European Commission.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Working methodology of the feasibility study on learning mobility in Sport (2013) 23
Figure 2: EU Member States targeted through the national consultation process (2013) 25
Figure 3: Breakdown of responses per Member Sates (n=447) 45
Figure 4: Breakdown of responses per type of respondents (n=447) 46
Figure 5: Breakdown of responses per position of respondents (n=447) 47
Figure 6: Breakdown of responses per sports covered (n=232) – 1/2 48
Figure 7: Breakdown of responses per sports covered (n=232) – 2/2 48
Figure 8: Breakdown Olympic/non Olympic sports 49
Figure 9: Breakdown team/individual sports (n=502) 49
Figure 10: Awareness and involvement in past EU funded Learning Mobility programmes (n=426) 49
Figure 11: Learning mobility activities funded through Leonardo da Vinci strands (n=61) 50
Figure 12: Learning mobility activities funded through Erasmus strands (n=61) 51
Figure 13: Learning mobility activities funded through Youth in Action strands (n=26) 51
Figure 14: Type of involvement in previous EU funded learning mobility programmes 53
Figure 15: Category of individuals involved in previous EU funded learning mobility programmes 54
Figure 16: Level of satisfaction from organisations involved in previous learning mobility 55
Figure 17: Level of satisfaction from organisations involved in previous learning mobility 55
Figure 18: Five principle benefits and added value identified from past learning mobility activities 56
Figure 19: Barriers and obstacles to the success of identified past learning mobility activities 56
Figure 20: Awareness but no involvement in previous EU funded learning mobility (n=326) 57
Figure 21: Awareness of non EU funded Learning Mobility opportunities used by the sport sector (n=393) 58
Figure 22: Responses obtained from Sport Ministries of the European Union (n=21) 60
Figure 23: Awareness from Sport Ministries of EU funded learning mobility activities in the sector (n=21) 61
Figure 24: Sport Ministries providing national funding for mobility activities (n=18) 61
Figure 25: Reasons for no funding provided by Sport Ministries to Learning Mobility activities (n=11) 62
Figure 26: Sport Ministries providing support and help to learning mobility activities (n=17) 63
Figure 27: Importance of mobility opportunities to be available in future EU funded programmes (n=358) 64
Figure 28: How beneficial could Learning Mobility be for potential beneficiaries of the sector 64
Figure 29: Potential outcomes for future EU funded Learning Mobility programmes 65
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 5
Figure 30: Willingness to be involved in future EU funded learning mobility programmes (n=375) 66
Figure 31: Opportunities to travel outside EU in future learning mobility programmes (n=375) 66
Figure 32: How beneficial could Learning Mobility be for the following key roles 67
Figure 33: Importance of the following outcomes for Non professional athletes / Elite Athletes (n=362) 68
Figure 34: Importance of the learning mobility outcomes for Coaches, Staff and Volunteers 68
Figure 35: Level of national demand for Learning Mobility activities 69
Figure 36: Needs for a specific Learning Mobility programme for each key role 70
Figure 37: Eligible organisations to apply for future EU funded learning mobility programmes 70
Figure 38: Preferred partner organisations for EU funded Learning Mobility programmes 71
Figure 39: Five main potential barriers to learning mobility activities identified by respondents 72
Figure 40: Potential barriers facing Athletes to participate in learning mobility programmes (n=334) 72
Figure 41: Potential barriers facing Coaches to participate in Learning Mobility programmes (n=322) 73
Figure 42: Potential barriers facing Staff to participate in Learning Mobility programmes (n=315) 73
Figure 43: Potential barriers facing Volunteers to participate in Learning Mobility programmes (n=310) 74
Figure 44: Structure of the Erasmus+ Programme 127
Figure 45: Budget breakdown of the new Erasmus+ Programme 128
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 6
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CEDEFOP The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
CoE Council of Europe
DG Directorate-General
DGEAC Directorate-General for Education and Culture
EACEA The Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
EC European Commission
ECHE Erasmus Charter for Higher Education
ECVET European Credit for Vocational Education and Training
EP European Parliament
EQF European Qualification Framework
EU European Union
EVS European Voluntary Service
HE Higher Education
HEI Higher Education Institution
HEPA Heath Enhancing Physical Activity
ICT Information and Communication Technology
KA Key Actions
LdV Leonardo da Vinci Programme
LLP Lifelong Learning Programme
NA National Agency
NGO Non-Governmental Organisations
NQA National Qualification Authority
SSC Sector Skills Council
TOR Terms of Reference
VET Vocational Education and Training
VETPro Mobility for Vocational Education and Training Professionals
YiA Youth in Action Programme
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The whole Consortium of the Feasibility Study would like to sincerely thank all individuals and organisations from within and from outside of the Sport sector who have provided statistics, qualitative information, good practice examples and case studies on Learning Mobility in the Sport sector; and those who have participated in the European consultation process through the online questionnaire, the national consultation discussions, and the Consultation Workshop organised in Vilnius.
Special thanks should be given to the Sport Unit of the DG EAC for commissioning this Study; one on such an important topic for the sector, and also for having been available throughout the duration of the study for regular monitoring, exchange and discussions with the Consortium.
The support and contribution offered by officials from DGEAC (mainly the Units responsible for Grundtvig, Youth in Action, Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci and Comenius) and the EACEA was incredibly important to collate high level qualitative information on Learning Mobility opportunities through current EU funded programs, but also to discuss new opportunities for the sector provided by the Erasmus+ programmes 2014-2020.
Assistance given by National Agencies, providing the study with available statistics, case studies and good practice examples of Learning Mobility activities within the Sport sector was greatly appreciated to evaluate the level of investment of the sector in such EU funded opportunities.
We would like to express our very great appreciation to all 447 organisations which took part in the online consultation survey and gave us the chance to obtain a representative picture of the situation around Learning Mobility in Sport. We would like to also thank the individuals who took the time to engage in the qualitative national consultation process.
We would like to also warmly thank all participants from the sport sector who attended the Consultation Workshop organised in Vilnius (Lithuania) following the EU Sport Forum on 01st of October 2013. The Consortium received some invaluable contributions and feedback which were crucial to develop a set of recommendations aligned with the realities and willingness of the sector.
Last but not least, a special thank you message has to be expressed to the national Experts who have been working closely with the Consortium all the way through the Feasibility Study and were responsible for carrying out the national consultation activities through interviews and/or round tables.
All this work and the development of such a deep analysis would have not been possible without the support and involvement of all these stakeholders.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION Background
The feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU was awarded by the Sport Unit of the Directorate-General Education and Culture (DG EAC) to a Consortium composed of the Olympic Chair in Management of Sports Organisations1 from the Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) acting as applicant, and two partners which are the European Observatoire of Sport and Employment (EOSE)2 and Sport and Citizenship (S&C)3, following an open call for tender (EAC/20/2012). The work was carried out over a period of eight months. National experts from the membership of EOSE were also deployed to undertake research and consultation activities at a national level.
What is Learning Mobility?
The feasibility study focused on mobility for learning purposes within the sport sector, called “Learning Mobility”, and not directly on employment mobility. Drawing on two separate definitions4, it was agreed that learning mobility occurs when an individual “moves to a country other than their country of residence, in order to undertake study, training or other learning, including traineeships and non-formal learning, or teaching or participating in a transnational professional development activity. The objective of such experiences is to allow individuals to acquire new skills that will strengthen their future employability as well as their personal development.”
Aims and Objectives
The main aims and objectives of the study can be summarised as follows:
To assess the current opportunities for learning mobility within the sport sector, both within and outside of EU funded programmes;
To collate all existing statistics and data at the EU and National levels about Learning Mobility carried out within the EU funded programs and identify good practice both inside and outside of the sector;
To identify the range of barriers and obstacles facing the sport sector’s involvement in learning mobility opportunities;
To analyse potential benefits, needs and expectations of learning mobility for the sport sector through a wide consultation with various stakeholders from the sector at both the European and national level. Through this consultation, the consortium would seek to challenge the thinking and perceptions of the sector in relation to learning mobility;
1 See http://sites.uclouvain.be/chaire-olympique/ 2 See www.eose.org 3 “See http://www.sportetcitoyennete.com/en/ 4 “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing Erasmus for All” COM(2011) 788 Final and The Green Paper “Promoting the learning mobility of young people” produced by the European Commission
PROGRESS REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 9
To produce a subsequent set of recommendations for the European Commission to determine whether the funding of sport learning mobility measures is needed within the new ERASMUS+ programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport.
Based on the Terms of Reference5 of the call for tender, the study focused on the particular needs and opportunities of learning mobility for four key roles within sport: Non-professional athletes in not-for-profit sports organisations Coaches in not-for-profit sports organisations Staff (employees) in not-for-profit sports organisations Volunteers (other than coaches) in not-for-profit sports organisations.
CHAPTER 2 - WORKING METHODOLOGY
Overview
In order to achieve the aims and objectives of the study the working methodology implemented was based on five distinctive working STEPS which were identified and developed in relation to the content and expectations from the Terms of Reference of the call for tender to ensure the delivery of each single expected outcome.
The five working STEPS were: Scope, definitions and working methodology Analysis of the accessibility to mobility through current EU programmes Mapping exercise on the needs and benefits of mobility in sport Analysis of the accessibility to mobility within the new Erasmus+ and Europe for Citizens programmes (2014-2020) Completing the consultation and developing conclusions and concrete set of recommendations on mobility measures for sport in the EU
In terms of geographical coverage, the study covered all 27 Member States of the European Union at a general level and the national consultation focused on the following 9 countries:
Belgium Germany Lithuania
Finland Hungary Spain
France Italy United Kingdom
CHAPTER 3 - ANALYSIS OF THE ACCESSIBILITY TO MOBILITY THROUGH CURRENT EU FUNDED PROGRAMMES Desk Research and Analysis
In order to obtain a true picture of the opportunities to date for the sport sector to engage in EU funded learning mobility, an analysis of the Lifelong Learning Programme6, along with the Youth
5 Terms of Reference, call for tender EAC/20/2012 - http://ec.europa.eu/sport/calls-for-proposals/call2012-terms-of-reference_en.pdf
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 10
in Action7 and Europe for Citizens8 Programmes was completed. Opportunities presented through the Olympic Movement were also considered.
Results
The analysis revealed that there have indeed been numerous opportunities for the sport sector, yet participation has been limited.
The below table highlights the applicability of learning mobility opportunities for the key roles within the sports sector:
Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) Youth in Europe for Sport Role Action Citizens Leonardo Erasmus Grundtvig Comenius Programme Programme Da Vinci Non-professional
athletes
Coaches
Staff (employees) Volunteers (other than coaches)
Numerous examples of the sport sector’s involvement in these programmes were obtained throughout the study and have been collated on a programme by programme basis.
CHAPTER 4 - MAPPING EXERCICE ON THE NEEDS AND BENEFITS OF MOBILITY IN SPORT ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE Questionnaire An online questionnaire was created in seven languages to engage the whole sport sector across Europe. The questionnaire aimed to firstly assess the sector’s current level of awareness and participation in learning mobility activities (with a focus on barriers), and secondly, obtain its view as to the importance and structure of learning mobility opportunities within the new Erasmus+ programme.
Results
The questionnaire was completed by 447 respondents from all member states and 12 additional European countries.
This included Sports Ministries (21 responses), National Olympic and Paralympic Committees, International and EU National Sport Federations, National and Regional Sport Federations, Universities and Vocational Training Providers, Social Partners and others (e.g. NGOs and sports clubs).
6 Lifelong Learning Program - http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/index_en.php 7 Youth in Action Program - http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/youth/index_en.php 8 Europe for Citizens Program - http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/citizenship/index_en.php
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 11
Key Findings from the Online Questionnaire: - 56% of responses (248) were received from European and National Sport Federations; - There was a high level of awareness of the Erasmus Programme (82%), a moderate level of awareness of the Leonardo Da Vinci programme (58%), yet a low level of other programmes - Europe for Citizens (32%), Grundtvig (35%), Comenius (38%) and Youth in Action (40%); - The highest past involvement in learning mobility activities has been through Leonardo da Vinci (14.32% / 61 respondents) and Erasmus (13.15% / 56 respondents). A very low level of involvement in Learning Mobility activities was reported for Youth in Action, Grundtvig, Comenius and Europe for Citizens programmes. - The 3 crucial benefits underlined by organisations involved in previous EU funded learning mobility programmes are “Personal development of individuals”, “Language and culture” and “Improved international relations”; - The 2 main barriers underlined by the respondents are “Administrative difficulties (i.e. complex application forms, visas, insurance)” and “Financial constraints”; - The main reason stated by 46% (150 responses) of the respondents for not being involved in EU funded learning mobility activities was the “lack of awareness of opportunities for Learning Mobility”; - A total of 85% of organisations which took part in the survey indicated that it will be “Important (57%)” or “Essential (28%)” for Learning Mobility to be available for the sector. - 71% (266 respondents) of the organisations are willing to be involved in future EU funded Learning Mobility programs. The most important potential outcomes mentioned by respondents for future EU funded Learning Mobility opportunities are: Personal development of individuals (95.1% / 346 responses) Acquiring new skills (94.8% / 345 responses) Experience of other national sports systems (92.8% / 335 responses) Accessing expertise that does not exist in my country (90.1% / 319 responses).
CHAPTER 5 - MAPPING EXERCICE ON THE NEEDS AND BENEFITS OF MOBILITY IN SPORT NATIONAL CONSULTATION
National Consultation Overview
A National Consultation was completed in the nine targeted countries in order to obtain qualitative data to add to the online questionnaire results. This took the form of round tables with key stakeholders from the sport sector, and interviews with sector representatives, National Agencies, and those with experience of learning mobility funded through the EU programmes.
This work was carried out by the national experts from the EOSE network who worked to common objectives and guidelines provided by the consortium. Individual reports were produced for each national consultation completed.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 12
Results
These discussions confirmed the general findings from the on-line questionnaire but added a number of good examples of activity in sport. Those that had past involvement in learning mobility reported positive experiences and there was categorical support for the continued existence of opportunities for the future.
Unfortunately, there has throughout the research been a lack of statistics at both a national and European level about the take up of mobility in the sport sector. The Study has relied on case studies, such as those obtained through the national consultation to build a picture of mobility in sport. From the examples obtained, there is an apparent preference of certain programmes in different countries, yet there are no overriding national specificities with regard to barriers or opinions on learning mobility for the sector.
It was clear that where sport organisations had combined at a national level they had successfully overcome the challenges of the application process and had delivered successful projects. In Lithuania, the Lithuanian Union of Sport Federations (LUSF) has been very well accepted by all sport federations, and has successfully ran mobility activity amongst 54 different Federations. In the UK, South Gloucestershire College has led successful projects for over 300 apprentices studying the Advanced Apprenticeship in Sporting Excellence on behalf of a number of colleges and Federations in England. Similarly, the Scottish Football Association has led projects for football clubs in Scotland over the past 10 years through which both aspiring players and coaches have benefitted. These examples of co-ordinated activity point the way to future success under Erasmus+. Further examples are included within the final report.
CHAPTER 6 - THE NEW ERASMUS+ AND EUROPE FOR CITIZENS PROGRAMMES 2014-2020
Overview
An analysis of the new Erasmus+ programme was completed and it was identified that that all the key opportunities from the Lifelong Learning Programme remained. Erasmus+ aims at improving skills and employability, and modernising education, training and youth work.
The programme is going to support activities in education, training, youth and sport in all sectors of lifelong learning including HE, Further Education, adult education, schools, and youth activities.
The new programme is built on a budget of €14.7 billion which represents a 40% increase in funding across all streams compared to the past Lifelong Learning Programme (2007-2013).
Opportunities for Sport within the new Erasmus+ Programme
Sport Federations remain the key to unlocking the potential of learning mobility in sport. Under Key Action 1, opportunities remain for sport organisations to lead learning mobility applications at a national level to enable individuals (both the paid and unpaid) to benefit from learning opportunities, in particular in Higher Education, Vocational Training and Adult Education, and through Youth programmes. Exchanges, placements, periods of study, job-shadowing, traineeships offer a flexible framework to shape the mobility to meet individual needs.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 13
The programme also, under key action 2, opens the way for strategic partnerships to be supported and this would help to develop and extend existing links between organisations to create the conditions where mobility can become a reality in sport.
The particular barriers faced by non-professional athletes, coaches, volunteers and staff were also addressed. Of these groups, the athletes pose the biggest challenge. The primary motivation for mobility is to support an athlete’s dual career without jeopardising their sporting progress. Sport Federations and education institutes need to work closely together and to implement the new Dual Career guidelines to ensure there is sufficient flexibility in both their sport training programmes and their learning/courses of study to enable athletes to balance the demands of education, career and sport.
The participation of coaches would be made easier too by closer collaboration between Federations and the development of tools to help the validation of their experience and activity in another country. This should be accredited to contribute towards their qualifications. Greater synergy between qualifications in different countries would also aid the process.
The absence of structured apprenticeships in the sport sector also hinders the engagement of the sector and sport organisations do not seem to have been as forthcoming in offering placement opportunities to staff or students as employers in other sectors.
CHAPTER 7 - COMPLETING THE CONSULTATION PROCESS - WORKSHOP The consultative phase of the Study concluded with a workshop in Vilnius organised alongside the EU Sport Forum 2013. An invited group of European network organisations and key stakeholders from the sector met to consider the findings of the consultation and the research and to put forward ideas and solutions which have been used to shape the set of recommendations in the Study.
The workshop proved very valuable in allowing the Consortium to conclude the consultative phase of the study and move towards the development of the recommendations for future learning mobility measures.
CHAPTER 8 - CONCLUSIONS A set of conclusions were developed, taking into account all information obtained throughout the consultative phases of the study. These conclusions were tested at the workshop in Vilnius and subsequently developed by the consortium.
General Conclusions
This Study identifies a number of seemingly contradictory indicators. On one hand there is clearly a strong demand for learning mobility - Sport recognises the benefit for the individual, for their organisation and for sport as a whole that would arise from an increase in learning mobility through the exchange of people, ideas and good practice. Yet on the other hand, sport has only participated at a low level in the programmes designed to make learning mobility a reality.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 14
To a great extent therefore, this demand has lain dormant partly because awareness levels of the opportunities offered by the EU funded programmes has been low and partly because sport has lacked the organisation and capacity to engage.
However, where the sport sector has ventured into the EU funded programmes there is strong evidence from many organisations and countries that it has successfully engaged with, and benefitted from, the EU mobility funding programmes under the Lifelong Learning Programme.
The new Erasmus+ programme preserves these successful categories of funding that sport has enjoyed and streamlines the presentation and processes linked to them. The challenge ahead is how can sport benefit more from the new programme and unlock the benefits its sees in learning mobility.
There is strong evidence that sport organisations appreciate the benefits that would flow to the sector from an enhanced level of mobility and exchange. Sport is organised around a mass of networks that are national, international and European providing the basis for co-operation and collaboration in the field of learning, but, it needs to be unlocked and at present, learning mobility is not amongst the priorities of these Networks. In many cases, these organisations, which are essential to activating learning mobility programmes, have been unaware of the programmes and opportunities themselves.
Where sport has participated, European Union funded programmes have proved to be very successful with high levels of satisfaction and recognised added value from those involved. The opportunities that have been available and that the sector has placed a value upon have both an academic and vocational nature. The recommendations from this Study therefore emphasise the need to raise awareness and spread these messages of successful practice and then to lead and support as it develops the capability and capacity to unlock the potential of the new programme.
Sport has had the opportunity to capitalise from a range of learning mobility opportunities through the current European Union funded programmes, yet there has been a low level of participation.
The first issue is that there is a low level of awareness across the sport sector about the learning mobility opportunities that have existed through European Union funded programmes under the Lifelong Learning programme 2007-2013.
Where organisations have been aware of opportunities, they have been deterred by the perceived resource requirement (human, time and financial) to prepare an application, and they have decided they lack the resources to develop the links and programmes necessary to support a strong application, and then to run the programme if successful.
There has been a recognised complexity in the EU funded programmes. There has been a large number of learning mobility opportunities available through the existing European Union funded programmes which have been difficult to differentiate and are also very similar in terms of criteria of eligibility, objectives and priorities.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 15
Sport has not generally engaged with the mainstream generic structures and networks that have emerged across Europe to bring together and offer mutual support to employers and training providers seeking to engage with mobility programmes. Evidence suggests that the sport sector is neither well-understood by, nor engaged with these generic organisations that specialise in supporting and leading mobility programmes at a national level.
Moving forward, the Higher Education, Vocational Training and Youth strands provide the best opportunities for sport as the Erasmus+ programme. But sport needs to organise itself to take advantage of these opportunities and the benefits that ensue. The recommendations that follow in chapter 9 of the Report, aim to tackle the barriers that have been identified and to create the conditions in sport to support a growth in learning mobility.
CHAPTER 9 – SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOBILITY MEASURES FOR SPORT IN EU
The final outcome of this Feasibility Study was to produce a set of recommendations as a result of the extensive consultation carried out through the Sport Sector, for initial consideration by DGEAC (Sport Unit), with the following objective:
To increase the level of take up of learning mobility in sport and to maximise the benefits of learning mobility for individuals, for organisations and for the sector as a whole.
It is proposed that this objective be adopted by the DGEAC (Sport Unit) to provide a focus for its interest and intervention in learning mobility.
To achieve this objective, the engagement of sport in learning mobility needs to be given a new impetus, capitalising on the increased profile of mobility generated both by the launch of Erasmus+ itself and the significant interest generated through the consultation process in the Feasibility Study, which has identified considerable latent interest and demand from the sector.
The recommendations and actions put forward for consideration through this final report reflect the overwhelming conclusions of this Feasibility Study that:
Sport would benefit from increased learning mobility;
The new Erasmus+ programme offers a good range of opportunities to financially support learning mobility in the Sport Sector. In making these recommendations, it should be noted that the starting point is that:
No concrete mobility opportunities for individuals would be financially supported directly through the Sport Chapter of Erasmus+. Therefore, it is proposed that:
The Sport Chapter should be used to create the conditions to support sport in accessing and implementing an enhanced level of quality learning mobility.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 16
To achieve the increase in mobility that is both desired by the European Union and the Sport Sector, a 5 Step approach is proposed:
Step 1: Simplify the presentation of Learning Mobility opportunities;
Step 2: Improve and enhance the application processes, procedures and systems that support learning mobility;
Step 3: Raise awareness IN the Sport Sector;
Step 4: Raise awareness OF the characteristics and specificities of the Sport Sector;
Step 5: Create the conditions in Sport to facilitate learning mobility;
Each of these steps has been expanded to include specific recommendations to be carried out by the European Commission in partnership with the Executive Agency and the National Agencies, and identifies the changes required in both the sport and education and training sectors.
These steps are not sequential. Leadership and co-ordination is required to implement the changes necessary as a holistic package. Sport has to work together across boundaries of state and sport in order to make mobility a reality. It is true that Sport has many networks at both European and National level, but these are fragmented and have differing spheres of interest and influence. They have not demonstrated the capacity to work together and learning mobility has never been a focus for them.
Therefore, a key recommendation from this Feasibility Study is that Sport needs to establish its own mechanism firstly at European level to take responsibility and give leadership to Learning Mobility in the Sport Sector. For the purposes of this Study this mechanism has been named the “European Learning Mobility Hub for Sport” (the Hub)
The set-up of the “European Learning Mobility Hub for Sport” should be prioritised and financially supported as a specific call for tender within the Sport Chapter or under the strand “collaborative partnership” of the Sport Chapter of the new Erasmus+ programme.
The Hub should aim to create a single point of contact for the whole Sector, to speak to and on behalf of the Sector as it seeks to establish and support a culture of learning mobility in the Sport. The Hub could be established by a single European organisation or by a consortium of organisations committed to work in partnership to establish the single point of contact required.
A detailed list of tasks is included in Chapter 9 and in order to ensure a high level impact, the European Hub will need to be supported through a contract agreement of a minimum of three years, during which time the aim will be to build the capacity of the Sport Sector and to grow demand for, and the supply of, learning mobility opportunities. A detailed work plan for each year of activity would be developed by the “European Hub” for validation by the Commission. All activities that would be financed should be action oriented and provide a response to the conclusions and recommendations presented within the final report of this Study. During this three year period the “European Hub” will lead the dissemination campaign on Learning Mobility, and will provide leadership for the Sport Sector, advice and support to prepare for full participation in Learning Mobility through Erasmus+.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 17
An additional budget will be needed to support specific dissemination and awareness activities at national level. It will be allocated to support the set-up of the national lead organisations and national mobility networks and will make a small contribution to the direct costs of the dissemination programme – such as events, translation and leaflets. It is expected that the National Agencies and the lead organisations will provide concrete match funding for these activities. The Hub should submit a detailed plan for these activities on its inception for approval by the Commission.
During this first period, the Hub will work to build a network of lead national organisations each with an established consortium of sport organisations and partners in their country willing to engage with mobility as a basis for applying for concrete mobility activities. Each national lead organisation will become members of the Hub paying a subscription for advice, tools and monitoring that will secure the sustainability of the Hub. During the third year the Hub should submit a new plan to review the progress made and the impact of the activities. The plan will look to the future and demonstrate the potential sustainability and the need for any further financial support.
Alongside the establishment of the Hub, it is recommended that learning mobility should be embedded in the Sport Chapter as a prime tool to promote and disseminate good practice in support of the key policy areas to be supported by the Chapter e.g. good Governance. The inclusion of mobility in project proposals and collaborative partnerships should be encouraged.
Summary These recommendations represent a wide ranging programme of communication and reform. The programme needs leadership and resource to establish itself. It is further proposed that the programme be initiated and funded through the Sport Chapter as described in detail above and that it should be publicly promoted by the European Commission through DGEAC (Sport Unit) under the following headings: ▶ 2014 – Learning Mobility – awareness in Sport .The Hub will be launched and the programme of awareness raising and dissemination will begin, highlighting the benefits of learning mobility and building the infrastructure necessary in sport to support the engagement of sport in the new programmes. This should be regarded as a preparatory year. ▶ 2015 – To be the year of “learning mobility in sport”. As a result of the awareness programme, Sport should be profiled and promoted at a national level as a priority sector, encouraging applications from the Sector for all relevant strands of the programme.
The authors of this Study strongly believe that immense benefits will flow to Sport if it can adopt a culture of Learning Mobility. The European Commission has the opportunity to raise the whole profile of mobility in sport link to the launch of the new Erasmus+ programme.
The sector has demonstrated his willingness to move in this direction but the leadership offered by the Hub concept will be crucial to ensuring success.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 18
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW The feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU was awarded by the Sport Unit of the Directorate-General Education and Culture (DG EAC) to the Consortium following an open call for tender (EAC/20/2012) and the research and consultation have been carried out over a period of 8 months.
The Consortium responsible for the study is composed of the Olympic Chair in Management of Sports Organisations from the Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) acting as applicant, and two partners which are the European Observatoire of Sport and Employment (EOSE) and Sport and Citizenship (S&C). National experts from the membership of EOSE were also deployed to undertake research and consultation activities at a national level.
The feasibility study focused on mobility for learning purposes within the sport sector called “Learning Mobility” and not directly on employment mobility. Indeed, drawing on two separate definitions9, it was agreed that learning mobility occurs when an individual “moves to a country other than their country of residence, in order to undertake study, training or other learning, including traineeships and non formal learning, or teaching or participating in a transnational professional development activity. The objective of such experiences is to allow individuals to acquire new skills that will strengthen their future employability as well as their personal development.”
Learning mobility has been carried out through various EU funding programmes operated by the European Commission that provide support for people as they move to another European country to develop their skills. Opportunities can be varied; for example, they can be full-time or part-time study (for instance, at a university) or work/volunteering experience/placement or a traineeship in a sports club or federation, or the undertaking of training and qualification acquisition with another Sport Federation or a youth exchange.
The main aims and objectives of the study can be summarised as follows:
To assess the current opportunities for learning mobility within the sport sector, both within and outside of EU funded programmes;
To collate all existing statistics and data at the EU and National levels about Learning Mobility carried out within the EU funded programs and identify good practice both inside and outside of the sector;
To identify the range of barriers and obstacles facing the sport sector’s involvement in learning mobility opportunities;
To analyse potential benefits, needs and expectations of learning mobility for the sport sector through a wide consultation with various stakeholders from the sector at both the
9 “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing Erasmus for All” COM(2011) 788 Final and The Green Paper “Promoting the learning mobility of young people” produced by the European Commission
PROGRESS REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 19
European and national level. Through this consultation, the consortium would seek to challenge the thinking and perceptions of the sector in relation to learning mobility;
To produce a subsequent set of recommendations for the European Commission to determine whether the funding of sport learning mobility measures is needed within the new ERASMUS+ programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport.
Based on the Terms of Reference of the call for tender, the study focused particularly on the needs and opportunities of learning mobility for: Non-professional athletes in not-for-profit sports organisations Coaches in not-for-profit sports organisations Staff (employees) in not-for-profit sports organisations Volunteers (other than coaches) in not-for-profit sports organisations.
This final report provides a step-by-step account of each stage of the study, demonstrating the methodology that was employed throughout the 8 months of work and the subsequent results. The report culminates with a set of recommendations to the European Commission with regard to future measures for future mobility measures for sport in the EU.
1.2 POLICY CONTEXT – THE CONCEPT OF LEARNING MOBILITY Learning mobility is a strongly established concept and has a central position in European policy.
The European Commission recently issued several policies, strategic frameworks, Council Conclusions and joint reports10 on education and training, and within each publication it is strongly advised to promote the benefits and encourage transnational learning mobility opportunities within formal, informal and non-formal learning environments for learners, teachers, trainers, educational staff, young adults, volunteers and other staff.
From those official papers, learning mobility is not regarded as an aim in itself, but as an opportunity to provide valuable experiences abroad and for individuals to acquire new skills and competences (e.g. language, social and civic skills, intercultural understanding) relevant to the labour market but also for social inclusion and active citizenship.
Specifically mentioned as one of the four strategic objectives within the Education and Training 2020 Strategic Framework and the New Skills for New Jobs initiative, learning mobility is seen as a key instrument to “equip citizens with the skills and competences which the European economy and European society need to remain competitive and innovative” and this is particularly relevant in the current financial and economical situation and crisis in Europe. Indeed, such qualitative experiences abroad are valuable for both education and training systems and the labour market
10 Council and the Commission Joint Report (2012) on the implementation of the Strategic Framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020) (2012/C 70/05); Council conclusions of 19 November 2010 on the ‘Youth on the Move’ initiative - an integrated approach in response to the challenges young people face (2010/C 326/05); Council conclusions on the role of education and training in the implementation of the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy (2011/C 70/01); Council recommendation of 20 November 2008 on the mobility of young volunteers across the European Union (2008/C 319/03); European Commission (2008) - Report of the high level expert forum on mobility: Making learning mobility an opportunity for all ; European Commission (2011) - An Agenda for new skills and jobs: A European contribution towards full employment; European Commission (2011) - Commission staff working paper on “the development of benchmarks on education and training for employability and on learning mobility”.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 20
as it helps to reinforce the link between the world of education and the world of employment and increase the employability of the citizens.
However, it was recently published within the Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the Strategic Framework for European Cooperation in education and training (ET2020)11 that only “10-15% of higher education graduates spend a proportion of their studies abroad” and “only about 3% of graduates from initial VET do so”. The relevance of, and reasons for this, within the context of the sport sector were central to the study.
The target for 2020 is to increase the learning mobility abroad of higher education graduates to at least 20% and to a minimum of 6% for initial VET including work placement12 through the new Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020.
11 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/policy-framework_en.htm 12 Official Journal of the European Union (November 2011) - Council conclusions on a benchmark for learning mobility
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 21
CHAPTER 2 - THE WORKING METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE OF THE WORK Based on the objectives of the study presented in the introduction of the report, the working methodology for the feasibility study was developed jointly by the Université catholique de Louvain (UCL)13 and the European Observatoire of Sport and Employment (EOSE)14 in consultation with Sport and Citizenship15, the national experts and other key stakeholders from the sector.
2.1 WORKING METHODOLOGY
The working methodology implemented was based on five distinctive working STEPS which were identified and developed in relation to the content and expectations from the Terms of Reference16 of the call for tender to ensure the delivery of each single expected outcome, whilst taking into consideration the potential difficulties and challenges identified in the application form.
The five working STEPS consisted of:
1 - Scope, definitions and working methodology
The main objective of this step was for the Consortium to discuss and validate the scope of the work to be carried out, the working methodology and tools to be implemented for each single activity, and to precisely define some key terms to ensure consistent use and avoid any confusion and different interpretations.
2 - Analysis of the accessibility to mobility through current EU programmes
The second step consisted of conducting a large piece of desk research at the European and national level along with holding meetings with key officials from the Directorate-General Education and Culture (DG EAC)17 and National Agencies18 in order to obtain available qualitative and quantitative information about existing learning mobility opportunities through the current European funded learning mobility Programme.
3 - Mapping exercise on the needs and benefits of mobility in sport
This working step was based on carrying out both quantitative (through a bespoke online survey questionnaire) and qualitative consultation with stakeholders from the overall sport sector across Europe to evaluate their awareness and involvement within current EU funded learning mobility opportunities; to obtain their views and opinions about the benefits, barriers and eventual needs for learning mobility to be available for the sport sector; and also to gauge their thoughts with regard to shaping future funding for sport within the new Erasmus+ Programme for education, training, youth and sport19.
13 The Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) - http://www.uclouvain.be 14 The European Observatoire of Sport and Employment - http://www.eose.org 15 Sport and Citizenship - http://www.sportetcitoyennete.com 16 Terms of Reference, call for tender EAC/20/2012 - http://ec.europa.eu/sport/calls-for-proposals/call2012-terms-of- reference_en.pdf 17 Directorate-General Education and Culture (DG EAC) - http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/ 18 National Agencies - http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/national_en.htm 19 Erasmus+ programme for education, training, youth and sport - http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus-plus/index_en.htm
PROGRESS REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 22
4 - Analysis of the accessibility to mobility within the new Erasmus+ and Europe for Citizens programmes (2014-2020)
The basis of this step was to carry out an in-depth analysis of the new Erasmus+ Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport and the new Europe for Citizens programme that will start in early 2014 in order to assess if the measures included corresponded to the needs and expectations expressed by the sport sector through the mapping exercise and consultative phase of the study.
5 - Completing the consultation and developing conclusions and concrete set of recommendations on mobility measures for sport in the EU
The final step of the working methodology consisted of using the outcomes from the mapping exercise and the analysis of the Erasmus+ / Europe for Citizens programmes to develop some conclusions and a set of detailed recommendations for the European Commission in terms of whether funding for sport mobility measures was necessary, and if judged necessary, to provide criteria and options on how the funding should be organised and structured. The organisation of a specific consultation workshop was planned to test and discuss these recommendations with various European stakeholders from the sport sector.
The overall working approach implemented through the study is summarised through the following diagram:
Figure 1: Working methodology of the feasibility study on learning mobility in Sport (2013) From past experience, this working approach has been very efficient and effective to enable the Management Team to regularly monitor the development of the work and be able to highlight possible delays throughout the life of the project. Indeed, in such an ambitious and short study (8
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 23
months), it was crucial from the start to avoid any waste of time or delays and always be in the position to check that sufficient progress was made.
For each step of the methodology a series of tasks and activities were identified and responsibilities allocated across the Consortium and national experts, along with a corresponding time schedule with deadlines, and expected outputs.
These tasks were all included within a detailed Gantt Chart of the Study which was also used by the Management Team to monitor the progress of the work.
A detailed update of activities carried out through the study is included in the next section of the Progress Report.
2.2 SCOPE OF THE WORK
As highlighted, the feasibility study focused on the concept of mobility for learning purposes in the sport sector called “Learning Mobility” and not directly on “Employment Mobility”.
The definition agreed by the Consortium for Learning Mobility was: “move to a country other than their country of residence, in order to undertake study, training or other learning, including traineeships and non formal learning, or teaching or participating in a transnational professional development activity. The objective of such experiences is to allow individuals to acquire new skills that will strengthen their future employability as well as their personal development.”
Based on the European funded Programme to be considered (Lifelong Learning Programme20, Youth in Action21, and Europe for Citizens22) and analysed, it was agreed that Learning Mobility would be explored within the following four areas:
- higher education
- vocational education and training
- youth
- volunteering
In terms of geographical coverage, the study covered all 27 Member States of the European Union at a general level and the national consultation focuses on the following 9 countries:
Belgium Germany Lithuania
Finland Hungary Spain
France Italy United Kingdom
20 Lifelong Learning Program - http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/index_en.php 21 Youth in Action Program - http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/youth/index_en.php 22 Europe for Citizens Program - http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/citizenship/index_en.php
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 24
Figure 2: EU Member States targeted through the national consultation process (2013)
The selection of the targeted countries was made taking into consideration the diversity of the national sport systems and structures in place, the geographical aspects and coverage, and also the learning mobility data and characteristics prevalent in existing studies.
Indeed, from the first discussions with officials from the European Commission and data collected in terms of learning mobility in Europe (not specific to sport), it was significant that the highest number of learning mobility participants usually came from Germany, France and Italy and the top destinations were Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain. It was therefore important to include those countries within the in-depth needs analysis.
The sport sector as a whole was targeted through the feasibility study with a specific focus on learning mobility for:
Non-professional athletes in not-for-profit sports organisations
Coaches in not-for-profit sports organisations
Staff (employees) in not-for-profit sports organisations
Volunteers (other than coaches) in not-for-profit sports organisations.
The consultation process through the study was widely opened and was neither restricted to targeted countries nor individuals, yet for the work to be more efficient and realistic it was discussed and agreed by the Consortium to initially focus on a list of 21 different sports with regard to the sending of the online questionnaire during the survey / mapping exercise:
- Athletics - Basketball - Equestrian - Golf
- Automobile - Boxing - Fencing - Handball - Badminton - Cycling - Football - Ice Hockey
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 25
- Judo - Ski - Tennis
- Rowing - Swimming - Volleyball
- Rugby - Table Tennis - Wrestling
This list was agreed based on various criteria ensuring a good mixture between team and individual sports, Olympic and non Olympic sports, professional and grass root sports, and competitive and recreational sports.
2.3 EXPECTED OUTCOMES
The following outcomes listed within the Terms of Reference of the Study23 were targeted through the running of the work programme:
An overview of the main obstacles and barriers faced by non professional athletes, coaches, staff and volunteers of not-for-profit sport organisations in existing EU mobility programmes;
An overview of the sport mobility needs expressed by the sector for non professional athletes, coaches, staff and volunteers;
A detailed description of the current situation and concrete possibilities for mobility measures in sport supported by the European Commission together with a reflection on an adapted funding structure, requirements and eligible criteria;
An overview of learning mobility opportunities accessible through the proposed new Erasmus+ in the field of education, training, youth and citizenship for non professional athletes, coaches, staff and volunteers;
A Consultation Workshop gathering selected European stakeholders from the sector;
A full set of recommendations to the European Commission whether, and to what extent it is desirable and feasible to establish mobility measures for sport in Europe.
23 Terms of Reference of the Study available at - http://ec.europa.eu/sport/calls-for-proposals/call2012-terms-of-reference_en.pdf
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 26
CHAPTER 3 – ANALYSIS OF THE ACCESSIBILITY TO MOBILITY THROUGH CURRENT EU FUNDED PROGRAMMES
3.1 DETAILED ACTION PLAN AND WORK ACHIEVED
3.1.1 Detailed action plan:
3.1.2 Work Completed A large piece of desk research and a detailed analysis of the European funded Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP)24, the Youth in Action Programme25, and the Europe for Citizens Programmes26 were carried out to underline and better understand concrete Learning Mobility opportunities offered through these various opportunities.
The objective of this task was not to limit analysis to the sport sector, but to highlight all learning mobility opportunities funded by the European Commission through these programmes.
In parallel, and to be able to highlight all opportunities through the sport sector, an analysis of learning mobility programmes funded through the Olympic movement was also carried out.
A common template was used to carry out this analysis and the main goal was to highlight the principle criteria of each learning mobility opportunity in order to be able to assess if the sport sector and mainly the four targeted roles (Non-professional athletes, Coaches, Staff and Volunteers) were eligible through these funded actions or not.
The following criteria were used to manage the analysis:
- Objectives of the call
- Who can benefit
- Who can Apply
- Participating countries
- Not eligible as host
- How to apply Mobility duration
- Funding
- Partnership
24 Lifelong Learning Program - http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/index_en.php 25 Youth in Action Program - http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/youth/index_en.php 26 Europe for Citizens Program - http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/citizenship/index_en.php
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 27
Concerning statistics available (number of mobility per year, per country, per programme, in the sport sector etc), the desk research underlined that very little data is available at the European level through the European Commission.
Meetings were therefore organised with the Directorate-General Education and Culture (DG EAC) and more precisely with the managers of the Leonardo da Vinci, Erasmus, Grundtvig, Comenius and Youth in Action programmes. The objective of these meetings was to validate the analysis of Learning Mobility opportunities and better understand the challenges and potential barriers for people from the sport sector.
An attempt was also made to obtain available statistics and some examples of good practice but again, they are very limited and the DG EAC encouraged making contact with the National Agencies as a large percentage of mobility funding is decentralised and managed directly at the National level.
An email to all 27 National Agencies was consequently sent to inform them about the feasibility study and to invite those interested in participating to contact the Consortium if they had some information about learning mobility in sport. A small number of National Agencies responded to this request. The DG EAC directly sent a second message to all directors of National Agencies to encourage them to respond to this request and approximately 10 responses were received.
This work with National Agencies was continued through national experts who attempted to make direct contact with their respective Agencies through the national consultation period (Chapter 5).
Contact was also made with promoters of past mobility programmes to obtain further information about their experiences and to highlight good practice.
3.2 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS
3.2.1 Overview
It was very clear from the meetings held with officials from DGEAC that the sport sector is eligible in most of the mobility funded actions and the EACEA even underlined the fact that several good mobility project proposals were received last year from the sport sector but some were not successful because of a lack of expertise in project development (e.g. one criteria not met, budget not well structured etc).
The below table highlights on a programme by programme basis the opportunities presented to the identified individual roles within the sports sector to engage with mobility programmes as part of the Lifelong Learning Programme, the Youth in Action Programme and the Europe for Citizens Programme.
This re-emphasises the notion that sport was able to and has participated in learning mobility activities:
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 28
Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) Youth in Europe for Sport Role Action Citizens Leonardo Erasmus Grundtvig Comenius Programme Programme Da Vinci Non-professional
athletes
Coaches
Staff (employees) Volunteers (other than coaches) This table shows the opportunities that have existed for individuals based on their specified role. It is acknowledged however that non-professional athletes could be involved in all programmes, but this would not be based on them being a non-professional athlete. For instance, a non- professional athlete could be involved in an Erasmus or Comenius programme, but this would be based on them being a student, and not a non-professional athlete.
3.2.2 Analysis of Learning Mobility Opportunities
The following sections are a review of each of the programmes referred to in the above table with regard to learning mobility opportunities presented to the sports sector. Each programme (e.g. Erasmus/Comenius/Youth in Action etc) has a corresponding Annex (Annex 1) with a full analysis of the different learning mobility actions open to applicants.
These annexes focus solely on specific mobility actions; it has been possible for learning mobility to take place through other actions within a given programme but these have not been considered as part of this analysis. Where relevant and possible, statistics and various examples have been added to the annexes.
Those opportunities under the Olympic programme have also been summarised (Annex 2). Additional annexes have been created under each of the programmes, consisting of examples of sports’ involvement in learning mobility that was obtained throughout the consultative phases of the study (Annex 3).
WHAT OPPORTUNITIES EXISTED FOR SPORT TO PARTICIPATE IN LEARNING MOBILITY EU FUNDED PROGRAMMES WITHIN THE 2007-2013 LIFELONG LEARNING PROGRAMME? a) Leonardo Da Vinci Summary
Number of Mobility Actions: 4 1. People in the Labour Market (PLM) 2. Initial Vocational Training (IVT) 3. VET (vocational education and training) Professionals 4. Preparatory Visits
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 29
Main Participants: - People in the labour market - Those in VET - Professionals delivering VET
Summary of activity: Participants travel abroad to undertake work-related training or to exchange experience and knowledge.
Applicable for: Yes / No
Non-professional athletes Yes
Coaches Yes
Staff Yes
Volunteers Yes
Organisations involved in previous learning mobility programmes in sport: - Federations - Colleges - Voluntary organisations
Best Practice Example
Promoter/Title of programme: Lithuanian Union of Sports Federations In Service Training of Sports managers 2012-2013
Funding stream: Leonardo Da Vinci - People in the Labour Market (LLP-LdV-PLM-2012-LT- 0743)
Objectives: Sports managers from different Lithuanian sport federations were involved in this project following a selection procedure. The main selection criteria were work experience in sports and qualifications in the sports field. The United Kingdom was chosen for the placement.
The main criteria of choosing this country were: a well developed sport management system and its high qualified specialists in sports management. The main objectives of the project were to improve sport managers qualifications and skills in a specific field of management, to ensure efficient management of sports organizations and to promote the sustainable development of the sport sector.
It was expected that this project would help participants to acquire new knowledge and skills from the managers from different sports federations. These skills were needed to carry out daily activities more effectively. Furthermore, during this project, participants gained experience in preparation and implementation of similar projects.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 30
The project also helped to increase the efficiency of the sport sector employers, who could disseminate and use acquired knowledge on management issues of sports organizations. The results of the project were presented to the colleagues, coaches, athletes and other sport organisations.
Participants: Lithuanian Union of Sports Federations (co-ordinator), Baltic Business Connections, Basketball Scotland b) Erasmus Summary
Number of Mobility Actions: 7 1. Preparatory Visits 2. Organisation of Mobility 3. Student Mobility for Studies 4. Student Mobility for Placements 5. Staff Mobility - Teaching Assignments by HEI Teaching Staff and by Invited Staff from Enterprises 6. Staff Mobility - Training for HEI Staff at Enterprises and at HEI 7. Intensive Programmes (including language programmes)
Main Participants: - Teaching and other staff from HE institutions - HE students - Company staff
Summary of activity: - Students and staff from HE institutions travel abroad to study, teach, train or learn from a foreign HE institution - Students can also undertake traineeships, whilst teaching and other HE staff can undertake training in a foreign business - Staff of companies can also teach at a foreign HE institution.
Applicable for: Yes / No
Non-professional athletes No
Coaches Yes
Staff Yes
Volunteers No
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 31
Organisations involved in previous learning mobility programmes in sport: - University sports faculties - Sport Federations - Sport clubs
Best Practice Example
Promoter/Title of programme: Lithuanian Sport University European Identity through Volunteering in Sport 2010-2013
Funding stream: Erasmus Intensive Programme (3 programmes) (LLP-ERA-IP-2010-LT-0442; LLP-ERA-IP-2011-LT-0588; LLP-ERA-IP-2012-LT-0778)
Objectives:
1. To educate students in the activities of sports organisations within the EU, institutional and legal framework of volunteering and future challenges of civic society.
2. To encourage the continuation of research into volunteering in sport from the European perspective addressing identity, social welfare and aspects of community development.
3. To share best practice on volunteering in sport and to create concrete development support models that foster better implementation of the recommendations to the EU institutions, to Member States and to the sport movement.
Participants: Lithuanian Sports University (co-ordinator), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, University of Jyvaskyla, Università degli Studi di Cassino. c) Grundtvig Summary
Number of Mobility Actions: 6 1. Visits and Exchanges for Adult Education Staff (VIS) 2. Assistantships 3. In-Service Training for Adult Education Staff (IST) 4. Senior Volunteering Projects 5. Preparatory Visits 6. Workshops
Main Participants: - Current or future adult education staff - Those involved in the training of adult education staff - Senior (50+) volunteers
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 32
Summary of activity: - Participants travel abroad to undertake training, formal and informal learning, exchange experience and knowledge with other adult education organisations - Participate in workshops or take part in volunteering projects
Applicable for: Yes / No
Non-professional athletes No
Coaches Yes
Staff Yes
Volunteers Yes
Organisations involved in previous learning mobility programmes in sport: - Social inclusion organisations - Sport charities - Youth and community centres - Civil society organisations - Welfare organisations - Parishes and self-help structures
Best Practice Example
Promoter/Title of programme: Fokolar-Bewegung Solingen e.V (Germany) ‘Sports for Citizenship’ 2009
Funding stream: Grundtvig
Objectives:
Sport plays an important role in European societies and offers huge potential for Lifelong Learning. This is getting even more import in times of globalisation and multi-ethnic societies where an increasing number of individuals show apparent deficiencies regarding social skills, cultural awareness and sense of belonging – often constituting a major source of xenophobia, racism, violence and even riots.
Due to the important societal and educational role of sports the overall objective of the project was to exchange, share and further develop new concepts for social learning through games and sports. These programmes shall promote not only excellence in sports, but also team spirit and group interaction, fair play, interpersonal skills, healthy lifestyles and cross- cultural co-operation.
The thematic focus was on training of adult workers – to a large extent volunteers - working in
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 33
youth and community centres, welfare organisations, schools, parishes and self-help structures. The pedagogical approach catered for specific learning needs of socially and economically disadvantaged environments as well as marginalised learners (e.g. migrants and ethnic minorities, school-drop-outs, juvenile delinquents).
Transnational exchange and co-operation were organised around 6 Partner Workshops each devoted to one of the following Key Themes: TH 1) Educating for peace through play and sports – national and international experiences; TH 2) Training of Trainers / Multipliers; TH 3) Learning through Sports and Games in Disadvantaged Contexts (urban and rural); TH 4) Educating through sports in Western, Central and Eastern Europe; TH 5) Informal Sports Education and it’s Future Role in the Lifelong Learning Process; TH 6) Best Practice - Sports for educating towards citizenship, solidarity and peace.
Between workshops the partners completed desk research, pilot training for staff, pilot training delivered by staff trained as well as on-site evaluation sessions.
Furthermore, all partners linked the activities and outcomes of the project with initiatives in their local communities on the basis of targeted PR and dissemination actions. This was undertaken to foster new co-operations with organisations and local authorities and at the same time promote valorisation of outcomes and best practice even beyond the project’s life cycle.
The project concluded with a High Visibility Conference in Rome facilitating transnational and trans-sectoral discussions and exchange among national and international stakeholders from the Lifelong Learning Community as a basis for wider take-up and future valorisation.
Participants: The Partnership (LP) consists of 12 civil society organisations from 9 EU Member States (DE, AT, IT, CZ, SK, PL, HU, SK, RO) - all of them active in the field non-formal civic education for promoting European citizenship, intercultural/interreligious dialogue, basic human values, mutual respect and peace. d) Comenius Summary
Number of Mobility Actions: 3 1. Individual Pupil Mobility 2. Assistantships (Assistants & Host Schools) 3. In-Service Training for Teachers and other Educational Staff (IST)
Main Participants: - Secondary school pupils - Teaching and non teaching staff - Future teachers - Host schools
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 34
- People involved in training teaching staff
Summary of activity: - Pupils travel abroad to study - Teachers and other staff undertake training - Student teachers gain work experience
Applicable for: Yes / No
Non-professional athletes No
Coaches Yes
Staff Yes
Volunteers Yes
Organisations involved in previous learning mobility programmes in sport: - Educational institutions - Schools - local authorities and municipalities - cultural associations
Best Practice Example
Promoter/Title of programme: Kauno rajono savivaldybės administracijos Kultūros, švietimo ir sporto skyrius (Germany) ‘Social Integration Through Sport’ 2012-2014
Funding stream: Comenius – Regio Partnerships 2012-1-LT1-COM13-07182 1 / LLP-COM-RP-2012-LT-00005
Objectives:
The project “Social Integration Through Sport” in Kaunas and Attica regions’ educational institutions is aimed not to discuss the ways of achieving results in sport, but to show that sport is a tool of students‘ social integration. Students can be involved in achieving such personal values as leadership, discipline, group work etc. Acquired skills and knowledge will enable educational institutions to organise education in such a way where every student will be able to grow as a person developing self confidence, self awareness and civic consciousness. Socialising through sport will encourage understanding between different social layers and cultures. They will gain competencies needed for their future education and for being active citizenships in a rapidly changing society. The analysis of physical activity and its need for 6-11 year old students will be organised in
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 35
partner institutions. An eTwinning project will be organised between the school partners. Great attention will be paid to analysing recreational and sport spaces and adapting them to educational needs. Project partners will share experience in the field of non traditional physical education such as dancing, outdoor activities, and Olympic education.
The result of the project activities will be a qualification raising programme for physical education and primary school teachers. The project and its results will help project partners to improve their physical education services. The competence of human resources will be raised and that will have influence on the quality of physical education services offered.
Participants: Kauno rajono savivaldybės administracijos Kultūros, švietimo ir sporto skyrius (co-ordinator), Kauno rajono Jonučių vidurinė mokykla, Kauno rajono sporto mokykla, Kauno rajono kūno kultūros mokytojų asociacija. Partners from Greece: Directorate of Primary Education in North Attica Prefecture; Primary School Of Polydendri; Attica Folklore & Cultural Association Of Women “Polydendri”.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 36
WHAT OPPORTUNITIES EXISTED FOR SPORT TO PARTICIPATE IN LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES WITHIN THE 2007-13 YOUTH IN ACTION PROGRAMME? e) Youth in Action Programme Summary
Number of Mobility Actions: 4 1. Youth for Europe 2. Youth in the Word 3. Youth Support Systems 4. Support for European Cooperation in the Youth Field
Main Participants: - Young people aged 15-30 - Youth workers - Youth policy makers
Summary of activity: - Young people travel abroad to take part in exchanges, initiatives, democracy projects and voluntary activities - Youth and youth policy workers travel to take place in seminars, training, work shadowing and exchanges
Applicable for: Yes / No
Non-professional athletes Yes
Coaches Yes
Staff Yes
Volunteers Yes
Organisations involved in previous learning mobility programmes in sport: - Youth centres - Youth groups - Sports charities - Sports clubs
Best Practice Example(s)
Title of programme: Järvenpää city sports services (Finland) ‘Youth and Sports 2gether’
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 37
Funding stream: Youth in Action – Multilateral Youth Exchange
Objectives:
The theme of the project is learning European citizenship through sport and physical activities. The project was continuation to the project "Sport and Action 4u&Me" which took place in Järvenpää in summer 2008.
The objectives of the project were active participation of youth, European awareness and understanding between young people. A comparison of how different countries use sport and physical activities as a tool to contribute to health was undertaken.
Young people were familiarized with health-enhancing physical activities used in Finland (for example Nordic walking).
Promotion of tolerance in sport was also a focal point; this was achieved through taking part in games for tolerance: floor ball 4 tolerance, street soccer for tolerance, handball for tolerance.
Participants: Germany, England, Malta and Finland; altogether 29 participants (including leaders).
Title of programme: Mladinski Cetner BIT (Slovenia) ‘Eurofanbasket’ 2013
Funding stream: Youth in Action
Objectives:
This youth exchange took place in Crnomelj in September 2013, during the European Basketball Championship. In the city centre participants from 8 countries established a fan zone, organized a charity basketball tournament, created bins (baskets), learned about and explored the sports culture of different countries.
Throughout the project they learnt about the importance of sport as a form of active citizenship and as a tool for developing positive values in society. They also learned about the impact European institutions and European elections have on their own future.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 38
WHAT OPPORTUNITIES EXISTED FOR SPORT TO PARTICIPATE IN LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES WITHIN THE 2007-13 EUROPE FOR CITIZENS PROGRAMME? f) Europe for Citizens Programme Summary
Number of Mobility Actions: 3 1. Active Citizens for Europe 2. Active Civil Society in Europe 3. Together for Europe
Main Participants: - Towns - Communities (or their twinning committees) - Local/regional authorities - Non profit organisations representing local authorities - Civil Society Organisations - Policy think tanks - Research organisations
Summary: - Citizens travel abroad to participate in town twinning projects and citizenship projects - To debate and promote European citizenship - To take part in workshops, seminars, amateur sporting events and exhibitions
Applicable for: Yes / No
Non-professional athletes Yes
Coaches Yes
Staff Yes
Volunteers Yes
Organisations involved in previous learning mobility programmes in sport: - Sport NGOs - Umbrella organisations - Networks - Associations - Think tanks - Universities
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 39
WHAT OPPORTUNITIES EXIST FOR LEARNING MOBILITY WITHIN THE CURRENT OLYMPIC PROGRAMMES?
The Olympic movement offers a range of opportunities for those working and operating in the Olympic environment.
The following summary (and corresponding annex) highlights opportunities for learning mobility offered through two relevant programmes of funding – the ‘Olympic Solidarity World Programme27’ and the ‘International Olympic Academy Educational Programme’. g) Olympic Solidarity World Programmes Summary
Mobility Actions: 1. Coaches Programme 2. National Olympic Committee Management Programmes 3. Promotion of Olympic Values
Main Participants: - National Olympic Committees - Athletes - Coaches - Technical and support staff
Summary:
The World Programmes covering four areas of sports development are considered essential for National Olympic Committees to accomplish the mission that has been entrusted to them by the Olympic Charter. For the 2013-2016 quadrennial period, the priority of the 17 World programmes is to increase global assistance to athletes, reinforce NOC structure and global management capacities, continue to support coach education and promote the Olympic Values.
Applicable for: Yes / No
Non-professional athletes Yes
Coaches Yes
Staff Yes
Volunteers Yes
Full analysis of Olympic Solidarity World Programmes opportunities: Annex 2
27 Olympic Solidarity World Programmes - http://www.olympic.org/olympic-solidarity-commission
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 40
h) International Olympic Academy Educational Programme Summary
Mobility Actions: 1. Master’s Degree Programme 2. Seminar on Olympic Studies for Postgraduate Students 3. International Session for Young Participants 4. International Session for Olympic Medallists 5. International Seminar for Sports Journalists 6. International Session for Directors of National Olympic Academies 7. International Session for Educators and Officials of Higher Institutes of Physical Education
Summary: The International Olympic Academy functions as a multicultural interdisciplinary centre that aims at studying, enriching and promoting Olympism. The foundation of such an institution was inspired by the ancient Gymnasium, which shaped the Olympic Ideal by harmoniously cultivating body, will and mind. The International Olympic Academy provides a unique opportunity for students, academics, athletes, artists and officials from all over the world to exchange ideas and share this "state of mind" in Ancient Olympia.
The wide variety of educational sessions, academic programmes and in depth research studies that are offered, all aim towards serving the vision of the International Olympic Academy for the new century: to explore and enhance the contribution of Olympism to humanity.
All sessions are held to promote these values and each programme takes place in Ancient Olympia itself.
Applicable for: Yes / No
Non-professional athletes Yes
Coaches Yes
Staff Yes
Volunteers Yes
Full analysis of opportunities: Annex 2
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 41
CHAPTER 4 – MAPPING EXERCICE ON THE NEEDS AND BENEFITS OF MOBILITY IN SPORT ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE
4.1 DETAILED ACTION PLAN AND WORK ACHIEVED
4.1.1 Detailed action plan
4.1.2 Work completed The main goal was to consult with stakeholders from the overall sport sector across Europe to evaluate their awareness and involvement within current European funded learning mobility opportunities, and to obtain their views and opinions about the benefits, barriers and needs for learning mobility opportunities to be available for the sport sector. Last but not least, this mapping exercise had the objective to contribute to shape future funding for sport within the new Erasmus+ programme for education, training, youth and sport.
Building the questionnaire:
After having agreed the tools and working methodology to be implemented, the technical team composed of European EU Programme experts, sport policy analysts, academics and senior researchers in the sport sector developed the draft questionnaire in English for the mapping/survey necessary to collect the required data at the European level and also within each of the 27 Member States with a deeper focus on the identified 9 targeted countries.
The content of the online questionnaire was developed in line with the expectations from the Terms of Reference of the Study and with the objective to:
Evaluate the awareness and highlight past involvement of the respondents in learning mobility programmes;
Obtain views and opinions from the sector about benefits and barriers to learning mobility;
Assess real needs and expectations from the sector in terms of learning mobility opportunities for non professional athletes, coaches, volunteers (other than coaches) and staff from non for profit sport organisations in Europe;
Collate data and ideas to shape future funding for sport within the new Erasmus+ programme for education, training, youth and sport.
To ensure a high quality questionnaire, a period of piloting and testing with some selected stakeholders from various countries mainly in the United Kingdom was carried out by the technical team and it resulted with some slight amendments and validation of the content.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 42
Building the database:
Using various sources and with the support of the entire project’s consortium, the national experts and the whole EOSE Network, a large contact database of around 1,000 organisations was developed covering all the 27 European Member States and including:
27 Sports Ministries (Sport Directors and representatives from the European Commission Expert Groups on Education and Training in Sport)
27 National Olympic Committees / National Paralympic Committees
30 International and 27 EU Sport Federations
21 targeted National Sport Federations from 27 member states and Sport Confederations
European Sport Networks together with an invitation to cascade the invitation to fill in the questionnaire to their national Members and contacts all over Europe.
This list of European Sport Networks includes: - Association of European Team Sport - Association of Summer Olympic International Federations - EAS Dual Career Network - EASE - European Association of Sport Employers - ECC - European Coaching Council - EDGA - European Disabled Golf Association - ENGSO - European Non-Governmental Sports Organisation - ENSSEE - European Network of Sport Science, Education & Employment - EOC EU Office - ESN - Erasmus Student Network - EU Athletes - EU Sports Platform - ECSA - European Capitals of Sport Association - ECSS - European College of Sport Science - European Deaf Sport Organisation - European Fair Play Movement - European Federation for Company Sports - European Gay & Lesbian Sport Federation - European Handball Players Union - European Network of Academic Sports Services - European Physical Education Association - European University Sports Association - International School Sport Federation
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 43
- IOC Athletes' Commission - ISCA - International Sport and Culture Association - Special Olympics Europe/Eurasia - SportAccord - Street Football World - UNI-EUROPA Sport
Training Providers / Universities from all over Europe (110)
Individual contacts through various other sport organisations (e.g. NGO, Sport Clubs)
Sending the questionnaire:
In order to increase the rate of responses and reduce the language barriers, it was unanimously agreed to involve the national experts in the translation of the questionnaire to have it available in 7 different languages: English, French, Italian, Spanish, Hungarian, Lithuanian and German (Annex 4).
The questionnaire was then put online using an online survey platform called QUALTRICS, and then an invitation to take part in the study and fill in the questionnaire was sent to the overall contact database across Europe in various languages.
The dissemination was made by email on 31st of May 2013 and two reminders were dispatched on 17th and 27th of June 2013. Again, to increase the chance of a high rate of responses these reminders were sent in different languages and using different strategies and channels.
Some of the questionnaires were directly sent electronically by EOSE centrally, some were dispatched by a member of the Consortium, and some by the national experts themselves – always with the objective to implement the most appropriate process and obtain the highest number of responses.
Special support was provided by the Sport and Recreational Alliance28 in the United Kingdom and the Deutsche Olympische Sportbund (DOSB) in Germany29 to disseminate the questionnaire to their national members and to encourage them to fill it in.
In parallel, the online survey was announced publically through the consortium member’s individual websites, newsletters and twitter accounts. All possible channels have been exhausted to reach the widest number of stakeholders from the sport sector and collate the highest number of responses.
The online survey was closed down on 8th of July 2013.
A total of 447 responses were collated by the July deadline, including a total of 307 fully completed responses and 140 partially completed responses. It was indeed agreed by the consortium to consider and keep partially completed responses that included valid information and data that would help analyse the position of the sport sector mainly for the first part of the
28 Sport and Recreation Alliance - http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/ 29 Deutsche Olympische Sportbund (DOSB) - http://www.dosb.de/
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 44
questionnaire. The analysis of the responses of the online mapping/survey was then carried out and the main findings are highlighted in the following section of the Report.
The total number of respondents to each single question of the questionnaire differed depending on how far they went in the questionnaire. Indeed, for example some respondents only filled in part 1 of the questionnaire whereas some others stopped in the middle of a section and some others fully completed it.
4.2 OVERALL NUMBER OF RESPONSES
4.2.1 Total number of responses
As underlined, the mapping exercise was organised through an online survey which gave the opportunity to collate a total of 447 responses (Figure 3). The focus of the mapping was the 27 member states of the European Union but as the questionnaire was available online and publicly available it has also been filled in by 12 organisations from outside Europe (e.g. Macedonia). Out of the 447 overall responses, 286 were received from the nine targeted countries (64%) which appear in light blue colour within Figure 3.
The highest number of replies is from the United Kingdom (73 responses out of 447 = 17%), which might be explained by the fact that the testing phase of the online questionnaire was carried out within this country a week before the overall dissemination of the online questionnaire across Europe. That means that the questionnaire was made available one week earlier for the respondents from the United Kingdom.
Moreover the Sport and Recreational Alliance provided some support and managed the dissemination of the questionnaire to its list of active members within the United Kingdom.
Figure 3: Breakdown of responses per Member Sates (n=447)
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 45
4.2.2 Type of organisations
A majority of the responses were received from National and Regional Sport Federations (51% / 226 respondents out of a total of 447 responses), which was not surprising as they were the main target group of the online survey / mapping exercise (Figure 4).
Adding the responses obtained from the European and International Sport Federations (22 responses / 5%) resulted in a total number of 248 responses or 56%.
Universities and Vocational Education and Training Providers represent the second highest category of respondents with 61 responses (14%) even if they were not directly targeted through the dissemination of the online questionnaire.
It is extremely positive and encouraging to highlight that a total of 21 Sport Ministries from the 27 EU member states took part in the mapping exercise by filling in the online questionnaire.
Regarding the National Olympic and Paralympic Committees, it was also extremely encouraging to mention that 25 organisations from the 27 EU Member States responded to the online questionnaire.
The category “other” which gathers 73 responses mainly includes non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and sport clubs.
Figure 4: Breakdown of responses per type of respondents (n=447)
4.2.3 Position of the respondents
The online questionnaire was considered as an important request by a large majority of targeted organisations and this is confirmed by Figure 5 which underlines that most of the respondents were acting at the direction, management and coordination level.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 46
Indeed, 19% of the responses (85 responses out of 447) were received from Directors or Head of Education, 15.4% from the Chairs or Presidents (69 responses), 14.8% from General Secretaries or Treasurers (66 responses), and 14.5% from Chief Executive Officers or Directors (65 responses). This represents a total of 63.7% of the respondents (285 responses out of 447).
Respondents acting as researchers, lecturers and experts (12.5%/56 responses), project managers (11%/49 responses) or Coaches and Administrators (12.8%/57 responses) also took part in the survey and filled in the online questionnaire.
Figure 5: Breakdown of responses per position of respondents (n=447)
4.2.4 European and national sport federations (n = 232)
European and national sport federations were asked to highlight the sport(s) covered (Figures 6 and 7) through their activities and the highest number of responses was obtained from sport federations covering swimming (9%/21 responses) and athletics (9%/20 responses).
This was followed by football (8%/19 responses), golf (7%/17 responses), basketball (7%/16 responses) and a group of sports representing 6% of responses (badminton, cycling, judo, rugby, skiing and volleyball).
In total, 51% of the respondents indicated that they cover at least one of the targeted sports listed within Chapter 2 of this report (sports highlighted in light blue colour within Figures 6 and 7).
The category “other” which represents the highest number of responses with 19% (43 responses) includes sports and activities such as American Football, Chess, Fitness, Cheerleading, Lacrosse and Surfing. Respondents were given the option to choose from a list of 52 sports and these activities were not listed so appear in the category “other”.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 47
Figure 6: Breakdown of responses per sports covered (n=232) – 1/2
Figure 7: Breakdown of responses per sports covered (n=232) – 2/2
A large majority of the sports covered by the European and national sport federations that responded to the online questionnaire were Olympic sports – 75% representing 378 responses (Figure 8) and mainly individual sports – 72% representing 362 responses (Figure 9).
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 48
Figure 8: Breakdown Olympic/non Olympic sports Figure 9: Breakdown team/individual sports (n=502)
4.3 AWARENESS AND INVOLVEMENT IN CURRENT EU FUNDED MOBILITY OPPORTUNITIES Note: Responses to the following of the report exclude Sport Ministries as different questions were asked to them. Responses from Sport Ministries are included in section 4.4.
4.3.1 Awareness and involvement
Following the general questions about the characteristics of the respondents, the questionnaire focused on the level of awareness and previous involvement in European funded learning mobility opportunities – i.e. the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP), and Europe for Citizens programme (Figure 10).
Figure 10: Awareness and involvement in past EU funded Learning Mobility programmes (n=426)
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 49
Erasmus is by far the most known EU funded learning mobility programme with only 17.84% of the respondents (76 respondents) not aware of this opportunity. It is followed by the Leonardo da Vinci programme which is known by a majority of the respondents as only 41.55% (177 respondents) indicated that they were not aware of such EU funded opportunities.
The mapping exercise underlined that learning mobility opportunities through Europe for Citizens programme (67.61% / 288 respondents), Grundtvig (65.49%/ 279 respondents), Comenius (61.74% / 263 respondents) and Youth in Action (59.86% / 255 respondents) programmes are not well known by a large majority of the respondents (Figure 10).
In terms of involvement within these learning mobility programmes, the responses collated were low and the highest number of funded activities was obtained for Leonardo da Vinci (14.32% / 61 respondents) and Erasmus (13.15% / 56 respondents).
The involvement of respondents within other EU funded learning mobility programmes was very low. Indeed, Figure 10 highlights that only 29 organisations (6.8% of respondents) were involved within Youth in Action learning mobility activities, 21 organisations (4.93%) within Grundtvig, and only 8 within Comenius and Europe for Citizens (1.88%).
For the Leonardo da Vinci programme, the question about the strands confirmed that the highest number of learning mobility activities were funded through the “Initial Vocational Training (IVT)” action category – 25 responses or 41%. This was followed by “Preparatory Visits” (19 responses / 31%) and “VET Professionals” (18 responses / 30%). The entire split of Leonardo da Vinci categories can be found within the figure 11 below.
Figure 11: Learning mobility activities funded through Leonardo da Vinci strands (n=61) Concerning Erasmus, the category “Student Mobility for Studies” is the one which funded the highest number of learning mobility activities in the sector (38 responses / 84%). It is followed by
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 50
“Staff Mobility for Teaching Assignment” (26 responses / 58%) and “Student Mobility for Placement” (21 responses / 47%). The full breakdown per category is presented within figure 12.
Figure 12: Learning mobility activities funded through Erasmus strands (n=61)
For the Youth in Action programme, the “Youth Exchange” (11 responses / 42%) and “Youth Initiatives” (10 responses / 38%) categories are the ones through which the highest number of learning mobility activities in the sport sector were funded. Figure 13 below presents the full breakdown through each of the existing categories.
Figure 13: Learning mobility activities funded through Youth in Action strands (n=26)
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 51
4.3.2 Main findings from organisations involved in previous EU learning mobility activities
A series of specific questions were asked to respondents who were currently or had previously been involved in EU funded learning mobility activities and the objective was to learn more from their actual experiences. These questions were neither asked to Sport Ministries nor to respondents that had never been actively involved in one of the EU learning mobility activities.
To avoid any misunderstanding or misinterpretation, the following definitions were given to the respondents concerning the differentiation between a sending and a hosting organisation.
The sending organisation undertakes to:
Define placement objectives in terms of the skills and competencies to be developed.
Choose the appropriate target country, host organisation, project duration and placement content to achieve these objectives.
Select participants on the basis of clearly defined and transparent criteria.
Prepare participants in collaboration with partner organisations for the practical, professional and cultural life of the host country, in particular through language training tailored to meet their occupational needs.
Establish a contract including a training agreement whose contents are transparent for all parties involved.
Manage transport, accommodation, visa/work permit arrangements and social security cover and insurance.
Evaluate with each participant the personal and professional development achieved through participation in the EU funded Programme.
The host organisation undertakes to:
Promote understanding of the culture and mentality of the host country
Assign to beneficiaries tasks and responsibilities to match their knowledge, competencies and training objectives and ensure that appropriate equipment and support is available.
Identify a tutor to monitor the beneficiary’s training progress.
Provide practical support if required. Check appropriate insurance cover for each beneficiary.
a) How the organisations were involved
From the responses obtained through the mapping exercise, it is possible to highlight that a large proportion of organisations that were previously involved in Leonardo da Vinci (69% / 42 respondents) and Erasmus learning mobility activities (76% / 34 respondents) indicated that they acted as sending organisations (Figure 14).
For Grundtvig, a majority of sport organisations involved in such learning mobility activities underlined that they played the role of hosting organisation (59% / 10 respondents).
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 52
Concerning the Youth in Action programme, it is more balanced as organisations were involved as hosting organisations for 46% (12 responses), coordinators for 42% (11 responses) and sending organisations for 38% (10 responses).
It is not possible to highlight conclusions for both Comenius and Europe for Citizens programmes as the figure is based on a total number of only 5 and 8 responses. The findings therefore could not be deemed representative.
It should be noted that some respondents were involved in several previous learning mobility activities with different roles and so they might have ticked several types of involvement.
Figure 14: Type of involvement in previous EU funded learning mobility programmes
b) Type of individuals involved within previous Learning Mobility programmes
Each organisation previously involved in at least one EU funded learning mobility programme was asked to underline the type of participants/individuals that took part.
They had the possibility to tick several categories of participants and it is interesting to note (Figure 15) that depending on the EU funded programme concerned, the category of participants taking part in the mobility activities abroad differs.
Indeed, for the Erasmus programme, which focuses mainly on Higher Education, the highest number of participants involved in learning mobility opportunities abroad were Students/Trainees (38 responses / 84%) followed by Staff employed in non for profit sport organisations (27 responses / 60%).
Concerning the Leonardo da Vinci programme, which focuses on Vocational Education and Training, respondents indicated that the highest category of individuals which participated in previous learning mobility activities was Coaches (29 responses / 48%) followed by Staff
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 53
employed in non for profit sport organisations (28 responses / 46%), and Students/Trainees (24 responses / 39%).
Within the Youth in Action programme, Volunteers (16 responses / 62%) - other than coaches - from non for profit sport organisations were considered as the main type of participants taking part in learning mobility activities abroad, followed by Students/Trainees (11 responses / 42%) and employed Staff (9 responses / 35%).
Regarding the Grundtvig programme which mainly concerns adult education, the most significant number of responses was obtained for employed Staff in non for profit sport organisations (10 responses / 59%), followed by Students/Trainees (8 responses / 47%) and Volunteers (6 responses / 35%).
For the same reasons as previously described, it was not possible to highlight main findings for both Comenius and Europe for Citizens programmes as the number of respondents was too low for these programmes.
Figure 15: Category of individuals involved in previous EU funded learning mobility programmes
c) Level of satisfaction of organisations involved in previous learning mobility actions
It is important to highlight that the level of satisfaction from sport organisations involved in previous EU funded learning mobility activities is quite high with more than 65% for each programme (Figure 16).
Erasmus with 78.4%, Leonardo da Vinci with 77.2% and Grundtvig with 76.1% are the programmes which obtained the highest level of satisfaction from the respondents.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 54
Figure 16: Level of satisfaction from organisations involved in previous learning mobility
d) Benefits and added value identified from these previous learning mobility actions
All organisations previously involved in an EU funded learning mobility programme were asked to highlight the main benefits and added value gained from this(ese) previous experience(s).
Responses obtained from each programme were combined and added together to obtain Figure 17 which underlines what respondents considered as crucial in terms of benefits and added value from their learning mobility activities.
Figure 17: Level of satisfaction from organisations involved in previous learning mobility
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 55
Respondents identified 3 crucial benefits which are “Personal development of individuals”, “Improved internal relations”, and “Language and culture”. These three benefits are followed by two more which are “Acquiring new skills” and “Experience of other national sport systems”.
No specific distinction was made in the analysis depending on the type of EU funded programme as the highest identified benefits and added values were consistent across each EU funded learning mobility activity. Figure 18: Five principle benefits and added value identified from past learning mobility activities
e) Barriers and obstacles to the success of identified previous learning mobility actions
As was the case for the previous section, each organisation involved in previous learning mobility activities was asked to highlight, if any, the main barriers and obstacles identified to the success of the programme.
The same methodology as before was used and two main barriers were underlined by the respondents (Figure 19) which are “Administrative difficulties (i.e. complex application forms, visas, insurance)” and “Financial constraints”.
Figure 19: Barriers and obstacles to the success of identified past learning mobility activities
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 56
As was the case previously, no distinction was made depending of the type of EU funded programme as the highest barriers and obstacles identified by respondents were consistent and exactly the same for each programme.
The main results of the barriers and benefits mainly results from organisations having been previously involved within a Leonardo da Vinci and/or an Erasmus experience.
4.3.3 Reasons for “awareness but no involvement” in previous EU funded learning mobility
All respondents, which indicated 1) an awareness of any EU funded learning mobility opportunities and 2) no involvement in previous activities, were asked to indicate the reason for this lack of involvement.
Figure 20: Awareness but no involvement in previous EU funded learning mobility (n=326) By far, the main reason stated by 46% (150 responses) of the respondents for not being involved in EU funded learning mobility activities, was the “lack of awareness of opportunities for Learning Mobility”.
Other key reasons judged important by the respondents (between 25% and 30% of the total responses) were (Figure 20):
- Financial constraints (30%/99 responses)
- Not considered as eligible target group for the types of Learning Mobility offered (30%/98 responses)
- No demand from potential learners (30%/97 responses)
- Lack of capacity for managing transnational projects (26%/86 responses) - Administrative difficulties (24%/77 responses)
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 57
4.3.4 Awareness of any other non EU funded Learning Mobility opportunities
All respondents, even with no previous engagement in Learning Mobility programmes, were asked to indicate their awareness of any NON EU funded opportunities for Learning Mobility that could be used by the sport sector.
From the responses received through the survey, only 18% of the respondents (71 organisations) indicated an awareness of some non EU funded opportunities used by the sport sector at the European, national and local level (Figure 21).
Figure 21: Awareness of non EU funded Learning Mobility opportunities used by the sport sector (n=393)
These 18% of respondents, representing a total of 71 organisations, were asked a specific open question to obtain further information about the non EU funded Learning Mobility opportunities which exist within the sport sector.
Some of the responses obtained through this question are listed below:
World Academy of Sports Olympic Solidarity programmes by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) e.g. Training courses for coaches: duration varies from 12 days to 3-4 months, IF format course with an outside experts designated to lead the course or seminar (USA, Hungary, Germany); NOC administrative development programmes: Internships (from 3 to 6 months) in the NOC of the country which has offered internships MEMOS - Executive Masters in Sport Organisations Management Training seminars organised by some International and European Sport Federations to permit the development of the sport all over Europe and also across the world (e.g. International and European Hockey Federations) Mobility programmes financed by regions and/or provinces
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 58
The British Canoe Union operate an Accreditation for Prior Learning (APL) Service by which coaches who have awards from other countries are able to progress their training by accessing BCU awards at the relevant level. Some direct synergies between 2 countries – France and Luxembourg : - participation of some national coaches to training period abroad - mobility of national consultants to the other country several times per year - organisation of some conferences abroad with participation from national experts - attendance of national experts to provide lifelong learning training to some teachers - exchange of expertise between coaches from these countries Activities funded by the national Sport Ministry in France to carry out lifelong learning training, participate to national and/or European conferences, to welcome foreign experts, to follow a specific sport training The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) Study Group Scheme International Cycling Union (UCI) solidarity programme: training programme for juniors & trainers Programmes of the IOA (International Olympic Academy) – courses and bursary Some bi-governmental agreements managed by the Sport Ministry. This programme gives the opportunity to fund some mobility exchanges between 2 national sport federations from countries having signed a cooperating agreement. The International Rugby Board (IRB) funded Training and Education knowledge transfer. The International Ski Federation (FIS) Aid and Promotion programme The Union European Football Associations Knowledge & Information Sharing Scenario - UEFA KISS IOC funded the International Coaching Enrichment Certificate Programme in America Maltese Sport Council assistance schemes and Training programme Programmes held by the Badminton World Federation and by Badminton Europe. Coaches ands sport agents can be trained from European Sport Association, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and Olympic Solidarity Engagement with other rugby national federations to exchange best practice on coaching and refereeing, although not as part of a formal programme. These exchanges include referees and coaches travelling worldwide to deliver courses as well as players, coaches and referees coming for training and development. Churchill Foundation / Opportunities targets young and/or potential Olympians Exchange Volunteer Projects for 14 - 21 days coordinated by Cheerleading organisations worldwide Foundations like Comic Relief engage use Sport as a tool for education. Work placements and Internships for 12-20 weeks in multiple countries - UK, France, Italy, Alaska, India, America, Canada.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 59
Bilateral Agreement with sport higher education institutions outside EU - Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Byelorussia, Russian, Moldavian. Some foundations in the United States of America Our organisation has bilateral agreements with some countries allowing athletes to train for a short period in other countries. Peace Players in Cyprus leads trainings on using sport as a tool for conflict transformation Bursary from Fondation Hippocrène to strengthen the relationship between EU youth citizens.
4.4 RESPONSES FROM SPORT MINISTRIES
4.4.1 Number of responses
A total of 21 Sport Ministries from the EU member states took part in the feasibility study by filling in the online questionnaire. As mentioned earlier, the previously analysed questions were not asked to Sport Ministries and some specific ones were asked instead.
The following Sport Ministries responded to the online questionnaire: - Austria - Germany - Netherlands - Belgium - Greece - Portugal - Cyprus - Hungary - Romania - Czech Republic - Ireland - Slovakia - Estonia - Italy - Slovenia - Finland - Lithuania - Spain - France - Luxembourg - Sweden
Figure 22: Responses obtained from Sport Ministries of the European Union (n=21)
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 60
4.4.2 Awareness of EU funded learning mobility activities carried out in the sector In total, only 4 Sport Ministries (19%) indicated an awareness of some EU funded learning mobility activities carried out within the sport sector.
Figure 23: Awareness from Sport Ministries of EU funded learning mobility activities in the sector (n=21)
4.4.3 Sport Ministries providing national funding for learning mobility activities
The mapping exercise then concentrated on the situation regarding Sport Ministries providing national funding to support learning mobility activities for individuals and organisations from the sport sector (Figure 24).
From the responses collated, one third of the Sport Ministries (33%) which participated in the online survey underlined that some national funding was dedicated to support learning mobility activities within the sport sector.
Figure 24: Sport Ministries providing national funding for mobility activities (n=18)
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 61
Some examples of financial support were highlighted by some of the respondents:
- Funding to sport federations for athlete internships, coaches’ and referees’ training;
- Staff from sport ministry funded to carry out some training abroad;
- Grant to sport federations through their annual activity programmes;
- Sport federations can include international activities in their work programmes and ask for some funding to send abroad their managers and/or to exchange good practice.
Sport Ministries which indicated that no support was provided to learning mobility activities in the sport sector were asked to indicate the main reasons for this situation.
Figure 25 summarises the situation and the main reason expressed by 55% of the respondents (6 responses) was that it is not seen as being “part of the mission” of the Sport Ministries to finance and support learning mobility for the sector.
The second highest reason underlined by respondent was the “financial constraints” (27%) and then the fact that there is “no demand from the sport sector” for learning mobility activities (27%).
Figure 25: Reasons for no funding provided by Sport Ministries to Learning Mobility activities (n=11)
4.4.4 Sport Ministries providing support and help to individuals and organisations
Sport Ministries were then requested to indicate if they were providing any practical support or help to organisations and/or individuals interested in taking part in an EU funded Learning Mobility programme.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 62
As highlighted within Figure 26, only 3 Sport Ministries responded positively to this question and they listed the following activities: - Workshops - Online support - Individual meetings - Support for writing and submitting the application form
Figure 26: Sport Ministries providing support and help to learning mobility activities (n=17)
4.5 SHAPING THE FUTURE OF EU LEARNING MOBILITY OPPORTUNITIES
4.5.1 General consideration
This section of the analysis was managed using responses received from all types of organisations including Sport Ministries. Indeed, the following set of questions was asked to all respondents without any exceptions.
The first question of this section of the questionnaire was to ask the view of the organisations from the sector about the level of importance for learning mobility opportunities to be available for the sport sector in the future EU funding programme (Figure 27).
A total of 85% of the organisations (307 respondents) which took part in the survey indicated that it will be “Important (57%)” or “Essential (28%)” for such learning mobility opportunities to be available for the sport sector.
Only 3% of the respondents (12 organisations) considered these learning mobility opportunities for the sport sector as “Not important (2%)” or “Not important at all (1%)”.
11% of the respondents gave a neutral position to this question and highlighted that in their opinion such opportunities for the sector are “neither important nor unimportant” (39 respondents).
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 63
Figure 27: Importance of mobility opportunities to be available in future EU funded programmes (n=358) Following this question, respondents were asked to indicate their opinion on how beneficial learning mobility opportunities could be for potential beneficiaries such as the sport sector, the country, the organisation, and individuals from the sector (Figure 28).
High benefits were underlined for each of the four potential beneficiaries and as demonstrated within Figure 28, individuals are considered as the most important beneficiaries of such learning mobility programmes and activities. Indeed, 97% of the respondents indicated that learning mobility could be “Beneficial” (31%) or “Very Beneficial” (66%) for individuals such as coaches, athletes, volunteers and staff from non for profit sport organisations.
Figure 28: How beneficial could Learning Mobility be for potential beneficiaries of the sector
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 64
Very few organisations (5 respondents) considered that such learning mobility opportunities would not be beneficial for the identified potential beneficiaries.
By reviewing the responses about the potential outcomes of such learning mobility activities (Figure 29), and considering the responses collated as “Important” and “Essential”, it is possible to underline that the most important potential outcomes identified for future EU funded learning mobility opportunities are: - Personal development of individuals (95.1% / 346 responses) - Acquiring new skills (94.8% / 345 responses) - Experience of other national sports systems (92.8% / 335 responses) - Accessing expertise that does not exist in my country (90.1% / 319 responses)
The potential outcomes that received the lowest number of responses that were therefore judged less important by respondents, (although results are still very high with more than 65% of respondents considering them as “Important” or “Very Important”), are: - Gaining a qualification (74.8% / 270 responses) - Improved playing performance in sport (74.1% / 265 responses) - Gaining credits towards a qualification (65.5% / 233 responses)
Figure 29: Potential outcomes for future EU funded Learning Mobility programmes
Concerning the level of willingness to be involved in future EU funded Learning Mobility programmes, 71% of the organisations responded positively (266 respondents) whereas only 2% of the respondents (7 organisations) underlined their reluctance to be involved (Figure 30). 27% of the organisations responded “do not know” to this question.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 65
Finally, 75% of the organisations (282 responses) which took part in the survey underlined that opportunities to travel outside Europe should be eligible within future EU funded learning mobility programmes. Only 7% (25 responses) responded that it should not be possible and 18% (68 responses) that did not know at this stage (Figure 31).
Figure 30: Willingness to be involved in future EU Figure 31: Opportunities to travel outside EU in funded learning mobility programmes (n=375) future learning mobility programmes (n=375)
4.5.2 Specific consideration to “key roles” within the sport sector
This section of the questionnaire focused on some specific questions for each of the following targeted roles within non for profit sport organisations: Non professional athletes / Elite Athletes Coaches (in non for profit sport organisations) Staff (employed in non for profit sport organisations) Volunteers (other than coaches - in non for profit sport organisations)
In order to make the results easier to analyse and to be able to highlight eventual differences depending of the key roles, where possible, results to the same questions have been combined.
a) Benefits of learning mobility for non professional Athletes, Coaches, Staff and Volunteers
Respondents were asked to underline how beneficial and valuable learning mobility activities could be for each of the key roles (Figure 32).
The highest benefit and added value were obtained for Coaches with 59% of the respondents (194 responses) considering such an opportunity as “very beneficial” and 33% as “beneficial” (133 responses) which means a total of 92% of the responses.
Around 80% of the respondents to the mapping exercise underlined that such learning mobility activities could be “beneficial” or “very beneficial” for both non professional Athletes and Staff.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 66
The role that received the lowest beneficial rate (73%), but this is still quite high, is the Volunteers of sport organisations with 31% of respondents (97 responses) considering learning mobility opportunities as “Very beneficial” and 42% (133 responses) as “Beneficial”.
Figure 32: How beneficial could Learning Mobility be for the following key roles
b) Potential outcomes of learning mobility activities for non professional Athletes, Coaches, Staff and Volunteers
A list of potential outcomes of learning mobility was proposed and respondents were asked to consider the level of importance for each of these outcomes for non professional Athletes, Coaches, Staff and Volunteers (Figures 33 and 34).
For non professional Athletes (Figure 33), the outcomes judged as the most important by the respondents from the sport sector were: “To help them support a dual/second career where sporting career is combined with education or work” (83.7% or 303 respondents considering as “important” or “essential”) “To help them prepare for a new career after they have finished playing” (86% or 311 respondents considering this outcome as “important” or “essential”)
The outcomes “To help them become an elite athlete” (65.7%) or “To help them become a professional athlete” (52.5%), even if still considered as reasonably high, were clearly not seen as the main priorities by the respondents for non professional Athletes.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 67
Figure 33: Importance of the following outcomes for Non professional athletes / Elite Athletes (n=362)
For Coaches, Staff and Volunteers, the outcome judged as the most important by the respondents from the sport sector (Figure 34) is “to gain informal experience or work practice” abroad.
Indeed, this outcome was deemed as “important” or “essential” for 89.9% of the respondents for Coaches (295 responses), 81.5% of the respondents for Staff (259 responses) and 74.1% for Volunteers (232 responses).
As highlighted within the figure below, this outcome was judged as being more important than the two other proposed outcomes which were “to gain a formal national qualification or licence” or “to gain a federation qualification”.
Respondents considered it more important for individuals to gain some experience or work practice through learning mobility activities rather than obtaining a formal national qualification or licence.
Figure 34: Importance of the learning mobility outcomes for Coaches, Staff and Volunteers
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 68
c) Level of national demand for learning mobility activities for non professional Athletes, Coaches, Staff and Volunteers
In terms of national demand for learning mobility activities in the sport sector (Figure 35), respondents considered that the highest level of demand would be for Coaches (31% of “high demand”), followed by Athletes (21%), Staff (19%) and finally Volunteers (15%).
It was confirmed by respondents that some concrete demand for learning mobility activities exists for each of the four key roles from the sport sector identified through the survey.
It is also important to highlight the fact that a significant number of respondents, between 16% and 27%, did not know if a national demand would exist for such activities of mobility.
Figure 35: Level of national demand for Learning Mobility activities
d) Needs for specific EU funded Learning Mobility opportunities for each key role
A question was then asked to each respondent regarding their opinion on the actual needs for specific EU funded learning mobility opportunities to be available in the new Erasmus+ programme for education, training, youth and sport30 (2014-2020) for each key role of the sector identified in the survey (Figure 36).
The responses were generally very positive and supportive of such learning mobility programmes, with the highest need being recognised for Coaches with 81% of positive responses whereas the lowest need was obtained for Volunteers with 65%.
30 Erasmus+ programme for education, training, youth and sport - http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus-plus/index_en.htm
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 69
Figure 36: Needs for a specific Learning Mobility programme for each key role
e) Eligible organisations to apply for future EU funded learning mobility programmes
To the question about the type of organisations that should be eligible to take part in future EU funded learning mobility activities (Figure 37), the highest number of responses was obtained for National Sports Federations with 76% (256 responses).
This was followed by Sport Clubs (45%/148 responses), National Olympic and/or Paralympic Committees (42%/139 responses), and Universities/ Vocational Education Providers (41%/131 responses). The question asked this to be considered for each category of staff and figure 37 confirms that the results were consistent and there was no differentiation.
Figure 37: Eligible organisations to apply for future EU funded learning mobility programmes
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 70
f) Preferred partner organisations for future EU funded learning mobility programmes
As a follow up of the previous question about eligible organisations, sport stakeholders were asked to identify the type of organisations they would consider as preferred partners for future EU funded learning mobility programmes (Figure 38).
National and/or European Sport Federations are by far the most preferred partners identified by 77% of the respondents (156 responses), followed by Universities and Vocational Education Providers (49%/98 responses) and by Sport Clubs (48%/96 responses).
As previously, the results were consistent and no major differentiation was noticed between non professional Athletes, Coaches, Staff and Volunteers.
Figure 38: Preferred partner organisations for EU funded Learning Mobility programmes g) Potential barriers facing sport key roles wishing to participate in learning mobility
The detail of the results obtained for each single potential barrier facing non professional Athletes, Coaches, Staff and Volunteers to participate in learning mobility activities can be found through Figures 40, 41, 42 and 43. Figure 39 summarises the five most significant barriers highlighted.
The barrier “Financial constraints” appears to be the most important potential barrier for all of the four key roles:
- Non professional Athletes (73.9% considered it as “major” or “significant”)
- Coaches (72.7% considered it as “major” or “significant”)
- Staff (67.6% considered it as “major” or “significant”)
- Volunteers (66.1% considered it as “major” or “significant”).
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 71
The results obtained as “significant barrier” and “major barrier” were considered to make the calculation of these rates highlighted above.
Then, regardless of the role considered, the same two barriers complete the podium obtaining a rate between 46.4% and 57.8% of the total responses:
- Lack of awareness of opportunities for Learning Mobility
- Lack of encouragement and guidance from relevant organisations (e.g., Sport Ministry, national federation, national agency)
Figure 39: Five main potential barriers to learning mobility activities identified by respondents
Figure 40: Potential barriers facing non professional Athletes to participate in learning mobility programmes (n=334)
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 72
Figure 41: Potential barriers facing Coaches to participate in Learning Mobility programmes (n=322)
Figure 42: Potential barriers facing Staff (employed) of not for profit sport organisations wishing to participate in Learning Mobility programmes (n=315)
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 73
Figure 43: Potential barriers facing Volunteers (other than Coaches) of not for profit sport organisations wishing to participate in Learning Mobility programmes (n=310)
This section on potential future barriers was the final part of the questionnaire.
The full European Survey Report and National Reports obtained through Qualtrics from the 9 targeted countries are attached as Annexes to the Final Report (Annexes 4 to 14).
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 74
CHAPTER 5 – MAPPING EXERCICE ON THE NEEDS AND BENEFITS OF MOBILITY IN SPORT NATIONAL CONSULTATION
5.1 DETAILED ACTION PLAN AND WORK ACHIEVED
5.1.1 Detailed action plan - Conduct interviews and/or round tables with main stakeholders within the 9 sampled countries; - Analyse information collected through the mapping exercise to identify the sport sector mobility needs.
5.1.2 Work Completed
The national consultation process was completed in all 9 targeted countries in order to gain more in depth views regarding the future of learning mobility for the sport sector to compliment the quantitative data obtained through the online questionnaire.
Each National Expert was responsible for organising the national consultation in one of two ways:
Round table meetings or
One to one consultation / face to face meetings
Experts were given the flexibility to carry out their work as most suited their nation. They were encouraged to engage with a variety of organisations and individuals from the sector. As the initial desk research had clarified that the majority of mobility programmes funded by the European Commission are decentralised, each expert also made every effort to have a dialogue with their National Agency to seek their views and obtain any information and data that they hold (in some cases, National Agencies had already responded to the DG EAC request for information from National Agencies as part of the analysis of learning mobility opportunities described in Chapter 3).
Those experts that carried out round table meetings aimed to capture the views of those in attendance regarding: - Their experience of mobility programmes; - Obstacles and barriers; - Good practices and benefits; - Some clarifications and open discussion about some key findings from the survey; - The future of learning mobility programmes for the sport sector.
Experts prepared for individual consultations or interviews by analysing (where possible) the questionnaire responses of the individuals they would be speaking to.
5.2 RESULTS OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION
The following pages contain the results of the targeted national consultation work. As stated, each national expert was encouraged to carry out the work in the most appropriate manner and this is reflected in the variety of content and style of the ensuing reports. Indeed, the consultation reports have been included in full to give the reader a full sense of the consultations; it was considered as
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 75
too subjective a task to try and summarise the dialogue as relevant information may have been omitted. The consultations have been pivotal in shaping the conclusions and recommendations of the latter chapters of this report.
5.2.1 Belgium National Consultation
Round Table Reports
Round Table consultation 1 on 02.09.2013 in Jambes (Belgium)
Participants: Raphaël ORBAN (Project Manager Sport Training Department), William FROIDVILLE (Project Manager Sport Training Department) and Didier KAIJI MATANDA (Project Manager Elite Sport Department) from the French speaking sport administration (Direction General Sport, ADEPS31)
The DG Sport32 of ADEPS supports sport mobility trough sports federations. How does it work? The DG Sport does not directly support mobility, but sports federations need to introduce a request through their strategic planning processes. They need to identify each project. It is mainly projects related to elite sport coaches or training for trainers that are relevant (e.g. training to become a cross-country skiing trainer).
THEIR VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS:
- For individual participants There are insufficient prospects. Mobility is not sufficiently recognised by the sport sector. It does not have significance for recruitment or promotion. The interest to acquire further skills is low given the lack of recognition from the sector. Lack of information. Language, as mobility opportunities are mainly in English and not all people interested speak English very well. This is why France is the main partner for most mobility programmes with the French speaking organisations/people in Belgium. It is considered that a minimum level of qualification (experience) is required to undertake a mobility programme. For instance, it is believed that it should only be for elite coaches to acquire experience/skills outside the country, and mobility is not valued enough by sports federations for other categories of people. Therefore, there is a low demand.
- For organisations who wish to send/receive participants Lack of interest from sports organisations and not the priority. Are not informed of all the possibilities offered to them; do not wish to be informed or do not listen. Sports federations do not seek to recruit the most skilled people because they cannot remunerate them as they would expect.
31 ADEPS - Administration De l’Education Physique et des Sports (ADEPS) - http://www.adeps.be 32 La Direction Générale du Sport (DG Sport) de l’ADEPS fait partie intégrante du ministère de la Communauté française depuis 1983.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 76
- Their view on other barriers:
The interest for learning mobility in sport mainly comes from individuals who wish to acquire more skills and experience in a sport. Sports organisations do not value sport mobility enough (except for elite coaches coming in) and might inhibit individuals’ willingness for mobility by their lack of recognition, commitment and interest.
Engagement in a European project might frighten people/organisations as it is seen as difficult and time-consuming in term of administrative requirements.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT:
- Are there specific national issues that need to be considered?
There is no legal frame to work as a professional coach/trainer in Belgium. Therefore, there is no sufficient incentive to get better/further training. Note, that for what concerns elite coaches, sports federations are looking for international experience.
A new system has recently been launched following a restructure of the sport training programme and the LLL-Sport Strategy, which enables the endorsement of learning outcomes acquired through experience.
Some federations have implemented a minimum level of qualified sport staff. The Decree of 2006 organising sport in the French speaking Community (art.38) does stipulate that a minimum level of qualitative and quantitative norms is required for trainers and coaches. However, this article has not yet been activated through Government policy.
- Recommendations for engagement and application processes
To avoid the reluctance for people and organisations to engage into an European project, there should be an instructive/educational tool to explain the process.
Better information.
- Recommendations for the programs (e.g. objectives, eligible criteria, duration etc)
Most of the time it is an individual project, but should go through an organisation which might not have the commitment to invest or go further into the project.
The individual should have more impact and support.
There is an issue regarding a specific Sport chapter in ERAMSUS + which is that some sports are not recognised in the country that would receive European support for learning mobility. This would give European credits to some sports in particular.
- Recommendations to address the barriers for individuals and organisations in future programs (based on the barrier identified)
It is recommended that a European framework is finalised (under progress) which should include skills/competencies profile for qualifications in the sport sector and ways to evaluate them.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 77
Round Table consultation 2 on 30.04.2013 (and individual interviews) in Brussels (Belgium)
Participants: Kristel Taelman (Project Manager, Vlaamse Trainers School (VTS) - BLOSO33), Paul Elaerts (Directeur BLOSO) and Annick Haesaert (Project Manager, AKOV34 - Agentschap voor Kwaliteitszorg in Onderwijs en Vorming) from Dutch speaking sports administration.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED BASED ON QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE:
The VTS promotes sport mobility for coaches with federations. This is part of the strategic plans of the sports federations. Moreover this mobility enters in the framework of the lifelong “non formal” education of coaches.
THEIR VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS:
- for individual participants
As for their colleagues from the French speaking community, the panel considers that there are insufficient prospects. Mobility is not sufficiently recognised by the sport sector. It does not enter into account for recruitment or promotion.
The interest to acquire further skills is low given the lack of recognition from the sector: sport coaches are mainly volunteers (or low paid).
A lack of information is recognized due to the fact that sport is still considered as an activity that is not presenting real “professional traits”
As for their colleagues from the French speaking community, the panel considers that it is considered that a minimum level of qualification (experience) is required to undertake a mobility programme. For instance, it is believed that it should only be for elite coaches to acquire experience/skills outside the country, and mobility is not valued enough by sports federations for other categories of people. Therefore, there is a low demand.
- for organisations who wish to send/receive participants
As many sports organisations are based on the activity of volunteers, mobility is not the priority. Although a shadowing process with qualified foreign coaches would be appreciated.
Lack of information.
As for their colleagues from the French speaking community, the panel considers that it is considered that Sports federations do not seek to recruit the best skilled people because they cannot remunerate them as they would expect.
- Their view on other barriers are consistent with those expressed by their colleagues from the French speaking community:
The interest for learning mobility in sport mainly comes from individuals who wish to
33 BLOSO - see http://www.bloso.be 34 AKOV’s goal is “to promote quality assurance in school- and professional- education, to develop education links within EQF in order to have recognised qualifications” - see http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be http://www.bloso.be
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 78
acquire more skills and experience in a sport. Sports organisations do not place enough value on mobility (except for receiving elite coaches) and an individuals’ willingness for mobility might be diminished by the lack of recognition, commitment and interest.
Engagement in an European project might frighten people/organisations as it is seen as difficult and time-consuming in terms of administrative requirements.
The panel nevertheless considers that mobility of coaches and athletes (In and Out) would be profitable for the positive image of Flanders abroad.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT:
- Are there specific national issues that need to be considered?
As for their colleagues from the French speaking community, the panel underlines that there is no legal requirements to work as a professional coach/trainer in Belgium. Therefore, there is no sufficient incentive to get better/further training. Note that for what concerns elite coaches, sports federations are looking for international experience.
Nevertheless the AKOV is working with BLOSO in order to clarify the “professional qualifications and competencies” of the main sport actors: coaches, administrative staff, and managers.
The Flemish decree on recognition and financing sport governing bodies requests a minimum level of qualified sport staffs: coaches, administrative and management staff. This decree is implemented and grants from public authorities support further implementation.
- Recommendations for engagement and application processes
To avoid the reluctance for people and organisations to engage into a European project and to better inform the sector. With this purpose, the VSF (Vlaamse Sport Federatie35) developed a project supported by EU grants called ‘Dynamo Projekt’.
- Recommendations for the programs (e.g. objectives, eligible criteria, duration etc)
To take into consideration all aspects of the management of a sport organisation: it is not only about coaching or training. It is also about the education / mobility of sport managers.
- Recommendations to address the barriers for individuals and organisations in future programs (based on the barrier identified)
As for their colleagues from the French speaking community, the panel recommends that a European framework is finalised (under development), which should include skills/competencies profile for qualifications in the sport sector and ways to evaluate them. Flanders is working on this within AKOC and the EQF Framework.
National Consultation Reports a) Jeroen Scheerder, Catholic University Leuven b) Dominique De Jaeger, Catholic University Leuven
35 Vlaamse Sport Federatie - http://www.vlaamsesportfederatie.be/Default.aspx
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 79
a) Interview with Jeroen Scheerder (Professor, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) on 30.08.2013
Face to face meeting in Leuven (Belgium)
SITUATION ON MOBILITY:
Not many students are going on mobility programmes; less than 5 students a year.
More students come to Belgium. It is believed that the location is attractive, as well as the reputation of the University.
A University degree in sport management can be obtained at Leuven which is not the case in the Netherlands. Therefore, students from the Netherlands come to study at Leuven for the curriculum related to sport management.
HIS VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS:
- For individual participants
The language is a barrier for individuals. This is why Leuven welcomes mainly people from the Netherlands who speak Dutch.
- For organisations who wish to send/receive participants
Language is a barrier for organisations who wish to receive participants as programmes should be internationalised and in English.
The focus for Universities is more and more on research and less on teaching. Therefore, professors do not invest so much in learning mobility for students. They might not inform them enough. This is not the case for all topics, as an example, mobility is very important and promoted in sports policy.
- His view on other barriers:
The IOC programmes are more practical programmes and there are issues for credit transfers.
Sport is linked to different topics such as physiology, biomechanics and management. It is small and its identity is not recognised to the degree it should be.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT:
- Are there specific national issues that need to be considered?
See language, reputation and location
- Recommendations for engagement and application processes
None
- Recommendations for the programs (e.g. objectives, eligible criteria, duration etc)
Programmes should benefit from both the practical and scientific worlds. An alliance of the two streams would be a solution to provide an academic programme (recognised by Higher Education) which is better opened to the practical side.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 80
- Recommendations to address the barriers for individuals and organisations in future programs (based on the barrier identified)
More emphasis should be given to the unique selling proposition that sport represents.
b) Interview with Dominique De Jaeger (Professor and International Relations Officer of the Faculty of Sport Sciences and Physiotherapy - Université catholique de Louvain) on 02.09.2013
Face to face meeting in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium)
SITUATION ON MOBILITY:
Limited number of students using the Erasmus possibilities. Our students are more going to other countries (Mobility out) than foreign students coming to us (Mobility in).
Foreign students coming to UCL come for the reputation of the University.
A University degree in sport management can be obtained at Louvain-la-Neuve. It is the single French speaking degree in sports management in Belgian Universities.
Out of the framework of the classical “Erasmus” mobility, the faculty of sport sciences and physiotherapy welcomes every year 30% (of the total number of students) of French students for a bachelor + master program in physiotherapy.
HER VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS:
- For individual participants
Language limits the opportunities for individuals. French speaking students come to Louvain-la- Neuve. Some Spanish speaking students do come, but English speaking students rarely do.
- For organisations who wish to send/receive participants
Language is a barrier for organisations who wish to receive participants as programmes should be internationalised and in English.
Outgoing students from the Faculty of Sport Sciences are sports management students. Students specialising in teaching are more limited due to strict conditions for the recognition of their teaching competencies by the public authorities.
- Her view on other barriers:
There is difficulty for “athlete students” to combine higher education and elite sport practice. However UCL develops a special programme for these students36.
The organisation of the “academic year” in two semesters with specific programmes is a barrier to mobility.
36 See http://www.uclouvain.be/373997.html
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 81
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT:
- Are there specific national issues that need to be considered?
See language, reputation and location
- Recommendations for engagement and application processes
Define clear contents for the exchange programmes (In and Out) in order to give clarity to the exchange students and to avoid the “auberge espagnole” phenomenon where exchanges are not quite carried out as they were originally intended.
5.2.2 Finland National Consultation
National Consultation Reports
a) Kristiina Danskanen, Finnish Coaches Association b) Kristiina Heinonen and Timo Hämäläinen, Finnish Sport Federation c) Pertti Pohjola, Sport Institute of Finland
a) Kristiina Danskanen, Managing Director, Finnish Coaches Association Face to face meeting + e-mail correspondence on September 5, 2013
HER VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS:
- For individual participants:
There is a lack of contacts in their field and no traditions of mobility activity.
- For organisations who wish to send/receive participants:
There is a lack of networks and tradition. It is also perceived that there are no funding opportunities.
HER VIEW ON OTHER BARRIERS:
There is neither competence nor experience with EU-funded programs in their organisation. There is also a lack of willing coordinators.
- A discussion of national trends versus European trends:
Coaches should have more possibilities to do study trips abroad or stay and study longer periods abroad. The Finnish Coaches Association is keen to send more coaches abroad. It was agreed that mobility programmes could offer wider opportunities to the sector for both outgoing persons and also for receiving organisations in Finland.
It was stated that involvement in mobility programmes should be a win-win situation and when you are ready to share and give you can get back – i.e. benefitting as a host and sending organisation. The Association is keen to co-operate with vocational institutes as well. This could be combined to vocational programs.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 82
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT:
- Are there specific national issues that need to be considered?
Finnish Vocational Qualifications have ‘language skills’ modules. The foreign language level e.g. in English, French, and Spanish is quite high amongst Finnish people. The competence level, however, is challenging or even too high for many students.
- Recommendations for engagement and application processes:
The Finnish Coaches Association is open for all new mobility possibilities and co-operation.
- Recommendations for the programs (e.g. objectives, eligible criteria, duration etc):
Students in tailored programmes for coaches (Further Qualification in Coaching and Specialist Qualification in Coaching) should have the possibility to participate in EU-funded mobility. The triangle cooperation with the student, employer and vocational institute (Sport Institute) could offer the best quality for students as part of their individual study plans, which includes assessment by training experts and representatives from enterprises together with the candidates themselves.
It was suggested that an active working group should be founded together with the Coaches Association to capitalise on available mobility opportunities.
The interviewee was keen to stress that competence-based qualifications provide adults a flexible way to enhance and maintain their vocational skills. A specific benefit of this system is that it makes it possible to recognise an individual’s vocational competences regardless of whether they have been acquired through work experience, studies or other activities, which could include mobility programmes.
b) Ms Kristiina Heinonen, Manager for International affairs, Finnish Sport Federation, VALO. Telephone discussion on 6th of September 2013.
- A discussion of national trends versus European trends:
Finland has generally been active in all EU-affairs & programmes. Despite this, sport people and voluntary sector could be much more active. Only few mobility projects have been funded so far.
- Recommendations for the future of learning mobility programmes for sport:
They believe that this study has been a great tool to start domestic discussion and co-operation in terms of future mobility activities. VALO believe that athletes and coaches in particular could benefit from mobility programmes through the new ERASMUS+ programme.
- Recommendations to address the barriers for individuals and organisations in future Programmes:
The mobility period abroad should be long enough – the big challenge is to leave your normal duties. Higher education and vocational education could have a bigger role in the future. They both have plentiful experience in the field.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 83
c) Mr Pertti Pohjola, Adult Education Director, Sport Institute of Finland. Face to Face meeting on 5th of September, 2013
- His view on identified barriers:
There is a lack of resources to apply for funding. There is also a lack of organisations who wish to send/receive participants.
- A discussion of national trends versus European trends:
The tradition of adult education is strong in Finland – mobility should become an integral element in all sport qualifications.
- Recommendations for the future of learning mobility programs for sport:
Higher education and vocational organisations could have a bigger role in the future. They both have plentiful experience in the field.
- Are there specific national issues that need to be considered?
The vocational qualification system in Finland is very good and the cooperation with the working life is close and fruitful. It is therefore in a good position to increase its activity in mobility programmes.
- Recommendations for the programs (e.g. objectives, eligible criteria, duration etc):
Different type of mobility should be available; e.g. study trips, work placements and study possibilities. A proposed active network should be developed together with international vocational and higher education organisations.
The Sport Institute of Finland is ready to take part or even take the lead in an international work placement group for Finland.
5.2.3 French National Consultation
National Consultation Reports
a) Léonore Perrus – Athlete b) Gilles Lecocq – ILEPS c) Gerald Guennelon - Ice Hockey Federation d) Gilles Corbion - Table tennis Federation e) Véronique Leseur – INSEP f) Christine Rott - Ministry of Sport g) Laurence Rakoute - Handisport Federation h) Romain Fermon - Orsay Association of Students in Sport Management i) Pierre Weiss - University of Strasbourg j) Emilie Coconnier – European Association of Sports Employers
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 84
a) Interview with Léonore Perrus / Athlete (Phone discussion) Léonore Perrus is a retired athlete of sabre fencing. She won several team gold medals in this discipline.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:
She never went abroad in a mobility project. But looking back, she thinks it would have been favourable for her career. She pointed out the fact that sports are internationalizing themselves but athletes do not participate enough in this process and in her view, this is a shame.
HER VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS
- For individual participants:
She does not see mobility as an individual or personal problem. But she also pointed out the difficulties in pursuing both a career and studies abroad. A high-level athlete can hardly experience a typical year in higher education but in her view, it’s not the main problem.
- For organisations who wish to send/receive participants:
Coaches are not in favour of mobility and federations are not either. Federations are afraid of not being able to control the athletes while away. Coaches and clubs are afraid that the athletes miss the process of selections as they probably will not be able to go back to their country when selections are organized.
HER VIEW ON OTHER BARRIERS:
There is a lack of knowledge of these programs and nobody ever invited her to participate in these programs during her career/studies.
The difficulty could be to find a host structure able to offer high level of training sessions and courses adapted to the professional will of the athlete.
A DISCUSSION OF NATIONAL TRENDS VERSUS EUROPEAN TRENDS:
She was not aware of differences between European trends and national trends. She had just heard about a taekwondo athlete (Floriane Liborio) who participated in an exchange program in Spain but could not say more about it.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT
- Are there specific national issues that need to be considered?
In her view, it is the same across Europe.
- Recommendations for engagement and application processes:
She does not have a good knowledge of the European programs of mobility but in her opinion, the problem comes from a lack of political will to support athlete’s mobility.
- Recommendations for the programs (e.g. objectives, eligible criteria, duration etc.):
She has suggested a need to adapt the mobility programs to the athlete’s daily life. As it is hard for the athletes to pursue their studies and career at the same time, the European programs
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 85
should take this into account and offer the athlete an adapted study plan with less hours of class than normal students. It depends from the sport concerned, but for amateur sports like Judo and Taekwondo, it would be difficult to study as a normal student while having high performance related objectives.
b) Interview with Gilles Lecocq / ILEPS (Phone discussion) Gilles Lecocq is in charge of the mobility programs at the ILEPS: École Supérieure des Métiers du Sport
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:
- Is your organisation involved in some mobility programs of the EU?
He personally became involved in these programs four years ago, but his organisation (ILEPS) really got involved in these programmes two years ago (Only in Erasmus programs). It was not part of the regular activities of his organisation to send students abroad. But this year 7 students over 300 took part in these programs.
HIS VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS
- For individual participants:
Students are motivated to be part of these programs but the organisation he is part of is less so.
- For organisations who wish to send/receive participants:
The main barrier he perceives comes from the organisation he is part of. They are not used to send students abroad and the organisation has difficulty in including mobility in their planned activities.
HIS VIEW ON OTHER BARRIERS:
The French mobility agency is helping ILEPS to participate in these programs. The French mobility agency organises information sessions very often and are a great support and help with motivation. The English language is an obstacle to participate in exchange programs for both students and staff.
A DISCUSSION OF NATIONAL TRENDS VERSUS EUROPEAN TRENDS:
ILEPS has trouble organising exchanges with Great Britain. In the field of research, it’s easy to work with them, but as soon as exchange students are concerned, it becomes more difficult because the British have a particular vision of exchanges. When they go abroad they participate in some programs in English, and when French students go there, no program in French language is organised. Additionally, the scholarship fees are higher than in France, which presents further difficulties.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT
- Are there specific national issues that need to be considered?
No
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 86
- Recommendations for engagement and application processes:
Everything is ok because they have the support of the French mobility agency.
- Recommendations to address the barriers for individuals and organisations in future programs (based on the barrier identified):
Each organisation should develop an international relation office. The first support has to come from the inside of sport organisations.
c) Interview with Gerald Guennelon / Ice Hockey Federation (Phone discussion) Gérald Guennelon is the National Technical Director for the French ice hockey federation
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:
Is your organisation involved in the mobility programs of the EU?
They have participated in the Leonardo program in the past, but he was not clear if this had been a mobility program.
HIS VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS
- For individual participants:
Erasmus programme
Their young athletes would be very happy to participate in the Erasmus programs at an individual level, but to associate the studies and find a club where the level of training in sport is the same as in the sending country is almost impossible.
This aspect can greatly discourage the young athletes to leave and go abroad. It was suggested that these programs don’t work for the athletes. It could only work if the host country has the same level in sport as the sending country.
- For organisations who wish to send/receive participants:
Erasmus programme
As a federation, they are not opposed to send their athletes abroad. They just see the limits of that.
Leonardo programme
In the past, they participated in a Leonardo exchange in Finland to share expertise between federations. But the sharing of knowledge was not easy to achieve. The Finnish federation is more advanced than that of France and for competition-based reasons, it was neither a real exchange nor share of knowledge.
Another reason for these difficulties was the lack of time. They have been to Finland but the Finnish did not come to France.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 87
Both programmes
When they are taking part in competitions, the coaches or athletes are less available. The importance of competitions makes things difficult. An exchange can work from one federation to another but it does not work between clubs because they have private interests.
HIS VIEW ON OTHER BARRIERS:
There is an ignorance of the mobility programs from the sport movement. The application process is too complex and it is too much work for one federation. Almost one person in his federation could work on the European projects but they need that person to work on other projects.
Mobility programs are not necessarily seen as sporting programs and the sporting interest is not always present. The difficulty is stronger for team sports than for individual sports. It is impossible to organise exchanges during the sport season; it could potentially work in the summer/off-season as preparation sessions. Language is also a barrier.
Erasmus programme
The host countries and its sporting associations perceive the athletes as people able to bring their competencies to the club; they perceive the sport’s interest without perceiving the student interest. This is one of the main barriers.
A DISCUSSION OF NATIONAL TRENDS VERSUS EUROPEAN TRENDS:
In Germany, Sweden, Finland, they have a long tradition of exchange programs. But they always have a sporting interest when they participate to these kinds of programs. Sometimes processes of cooperation begin between two countries because of existing links and it is not always in the framework of the European mobility programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT
- Recommendations for the programs (e.g. objectives, eligible criteria, duration etc):
The programs are not adapted to the sport sector. It would be better to have a program in the long run and not just for one year or two. It would provide more motivation to put the effort into training the coaches or the technicians.
The EU should implement some mobility programs specifically for sport because the existing ones are not adapted to the sport movement in Europe. Amongst the mobility programs, the Leonardo one is the most adapted to the sport movement (because the exchanges can be shorter and because coaches as well as staff can take part in this program).
- Recommendations to address the barriers for individuals and organisations in future programmes (based on the barrier identified):
To simplify the application process for these mobility programs.
To increase the support to the federations or sporting organisations for the mobility programs.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 88
d) Interview with Gilles Corbion, Deputy National Technical Director for the French Table Tennis Association (Phone discussion)
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:
The French table tennis association has never been involved in a European project in the field of mobility, but they have taken part in lots of mobility programs with the international federation of table tennis. These programs are more adapted to the way the federation operates. They also have governmental agreements with many countries (e.g. with Tunisia).
THEIR VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS
- For individual participants:
For athletes
It is very difficult for athletes because they participate in international competitions all the time. In many sports, the competition agenda is heavy. It is not easy to let the athletes take part because if they do not respect the program of competition, there is a risk for them not to be at their best level.
For the technical supervisors
For a technical supervisor it is totally different. They are already working and need to participate in training sessions. If they negotiate with the federation, the federation could probably agree to let them go, but only for a certain period of time. During the season, they are too busy to be part of this kind of program.
He never heard about students that wanted to participate to mobility programs. To encourage them to participate to mobility programs the federation would have to be convinced that there is a sufficient sporting and educational dimension to a mobility program. Most of the time, in these programs, it is difficult to find a place where both interests are addressed.
- For organisations who wish to send/receive participants:
There is a shortage of staff in his federation, which makes it difficult to participate in these programs. Because of this shortage of staff, they have neither the expertise nor the time to participate in these programs, but they do have an interest to participate. If they could get some financial support for these programs and improve the sport training in Europe, they would be very happy to do it. But they don’t know how it works and the programs are not adapted to their needs.
- A discussion of national trends versus European trends (if applicable):
In France they already have some exchange programs in table tennis with China, Hungary and some eastern countries so they do not really need European programs.
- Recommendations for engagement and application processes: The EU would have to provide administrative support because there is a shortage of staff in the federations, and if this support is not present, the federations will not be interested in applying.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 89
- Recommendations for the programs (e.g. objectives, eligible criteria, duration etc):
The programs should be adapted to the obligations of competition.
e) Interview with Véronique Leseur / INSEP (Phone discussion) Véronique Leseur (In charge of training) – INSEP (French national institute of Sport)
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:
The French national institute of sport does not participate in European mobility programs because they view these programs as not adapted to the sport sector
HER VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS
- For individual participants:
The main obstacle is for individual participants. They want to achieve a very high level of performance and the mission of the organisation is to help them to reach that high level. The athletes are very mobile - they are always moving to take part to competitions. They are involved in internships abroad.
But if they want to go abroad for a long period of training (1 /2 /6 months) it is typically complex to find an organisation adapted to their level in the host country.
The athletes have a good knowledge of these programs but they do not want to participate in these programs because they know it could stop their career.
To face this problem, INSEP has implemented a distance learning system that is very adapted to the needs of sport.
- For organisations who wish to send/receive participants:
They would like to participate in these programs but they are not adapted to the sport sector because it is impossible to find a place where both sport and educational levels are as high as in France.
HER VIEW ON OTHER BARRIERS
- Are there specific national issues that need to be considered?
Many countries would like to have a specific Erasmus program for sport. Most of European countries agree that mobility programs are not adapted to the sport sector. It is a European problem not a French one.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENGAGEMENT AND APPLICATION PROCESSES
- Recommendations for the programs (e.g. objectives, eligible criteria, duration etc):
The programs are not adapted at all. They would like to have a specific Erasmus program for high level athletes.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 90
f) Interview with Christine Rott, Project Manager (Directorate of employment and training) (Phone discussion)
She is involved in the negotiation of the “education and training” element of the new Erasmus + program. She often exchanges with federations in the management of European projects of sport.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:
- Could you give some examples of best practices from French federations?
The French Sailing Federation will be involved in the ECVET (The European credit system for vocational training).
The French Tennis Federation have set up a training platform. They are involved in many European projects, in particular in ECVET. They were involved in a Leonardo Da Vinci program in 2009. They sent 12 professional tennis teachers to 3 partner federations (in Spain, in Belgium and in Sweden) during 3 successive weeks.
HER VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS
- For individual participants:
A federation will not be opposed to letting their athletes go if they can learn from their exchange (i.e. if they go to another country whose international ranking in the sport concerned is better than the one of France). But federations need to be sure that the athlete will go back to their country after the exchange in order to keep their best athletes. But if the athletes want to go to another country where the international ranking in the sport concerned is not considered high enough, the federation will not let them go.
However, there is no general rule. For instance in certain cases, the federation will let an athlete go to a country whose sport ranking is ‘bad’ if the university or country is of a certain status (Example of Harvard + Qatar)
The type of actors concerned should also be taken into consideration (amateur athlete, professional athlete, volunteer, staff).
The financial constraints, the lack of language skill and the fear to go abroad are obstacles for the individual participants.
- For organisations who wish to send/receive participants:
These organisations do not always believe in the value of European projects in the field of mobility. Sometimes it is easier to go and directly see a given training establishment than to organise exchanges between federations. The training establishments have their own economic considerations and to be cost-effective, they know that they have to act at an international level. In these establishments, mobility is a priority and they are much more into that kind of programs.
Many federations are not interested by these kinds of programs. The federations have their own priorities and the management of European projects in the framework of mobility is not part of
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 91
their priorities. Sometimes they think that France has no need to be involved in exchange programs because they consider that the French system as great.
HER VIEW ON OTHER BARRIERS:
The administrative process to take part in these programs is too heavy and it is difficult to manage the financial aspects of these programs. It represents lots of work for each organisation involved in the programs for a small number of participants/beneficiaries. They have a lack of staff to manage European projects in the field of mobility.
A DISCUSSION OF NATIONAL TRENDS VERSUS EUROPEAN TRENDS:
In France there is a lack of staff to allow more involvement in the European programs.
France should set up a platform to support the sport sector to get involved in the European projects. As this platform does not exist, the French participation in mobility projects will be limited.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT
- Recommendations for engagement and application processes:
The application process could be simplified.
- Recommendations for the programs (e.g. objectives, eligible criteria, duration etc.):
In the framework of her work at the Ministry of Sport, she is involved in the negotiation of the text for the future Erasmus program (Erasmus +). At this moment of negotiation the part dedicated to sport of the new Erasmus program is only dedicated to amateur sport and not to Professional sport. This definition is too restrictive. It excludes professional sport and high performance sport.
g) Interview with Laurence Rakoute, National Technical Directorate – French Handisport Federation (Phone discussion)
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:
In the framework of the French Handisport federation she never took part in the European mobility programs.
HER VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS
- For individual participants:
No individual barriers. Her federation works with disabled people. It would not change anything to participate to European programs and to send disabled people abroad in the framework of European projects. She is not worried about the ability for some European partners to adapt themselves to persons with reduced mobility. Whatever the situation, they could find some European partners able to meet their expectations. They are always in contact with the International Paralympic Committee who could help them to find partners easily.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 92
- For organisations who wish to send/receive participants:
The main barrier is organisational. They are now restructuring the Handisport federation and therefore have no time for that kind of program. These programs are not part of their priorities as they are implementing a new national project of training. Maybe once they have achieved that they could think about mobility programs but not for now. They do have an interest for these programs but it appears difficult to implement them right now. Sometimes it is also difficult to make federations understand the objectives and benefits of mobility.
HER VIEW ON OTHER BARRIERS:
The administrative process to take part of these programs is complex. The organisations have to use co-funding mechanisms.
RECOMMENDATIONS
- Recommendations for engagement and application processes:
There is a lack of information and promotion of these programs. The Commission should communicate the benefits of these programs to increase interest.
- Recommendations for the programs (e.g. objectives, eligible criteria, duration etc.):
Her knowledge of these programs is limited but she thinks they are sufficiently adapted. The problem with these programs is that the administrative process is not easy to complete.
h) Interview with Romain Fermon - Orsay Association of Students in Sport Management (Phone discussion)
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED BASED ON INTERVIEWEE’S QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE:
- Do you have any personal experience relating to sports mobility or to mobility in general?
He was himself performing a mobility period at this time but did it by himself, not within any structured European program.
- His view on identified barriers:
The barriers exposed fit perfectly to the ones observed by the students, and not specifically in the field of sport. However, the feeling that there is no interest in performing mobility in Sports University appears to be stronger than for Law or Medicine. It was underlined that, from his personal experience, the few people he knows having performed mobility, did so with the Erasmus programme.
- Recommendations:
To have a dedicated person in every University well informed on the mobility programs available for students. To set the duration of mobility on a case by case basis, taking into consideration the will and needs of the concerned persons (student, University, Companies etc) and reach a compromise since the needs of the different stakeholders might be different; the aim should
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 93
determine the length of a program.
To use new means of communication as the targets are students. Universities are still using the old and non-adapted means of communication.
i) Interview with Pierre Weiss, University of Strasbourg
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:
They have always been partners in these kinds of program but believe it is too difficult to have taken part in European projects as leaders of a program.
HIS VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS:
The two main barriers identified from the questionnaire are not specific to sports organisations. However, from his experience, he underlined that it is easier to engage in mobility activities with certain countries. As an example, he mentioned that the barriers between France and Germany, especially in his region, are very minimal.
He mentioned that language is a barrier as, according to him, the use of English is not obvious since, he himself prefers using French and German. The main reason is that expressing himself in his native tongue makes the relationship more effective as it is a complicated exercise to express thoughts properly in English.
The density of exchanges must also be taken into account, as a long lasting relationship between two organisations allows thinking “together” and not as two different entities.
Finally, the lack of awareness is apparent among students and the main reason could be found in their own knowledge and perception of Europe. They do not even think about mobility. In his University, they have only one class focusing on Europe and dealing with Sports organisation in Europe.
HIS VIEW ON OTHER BARRIERS
- A discussion of national trends versus European trends:
Due to the geographical situation of Strasbourg, mobility processes are simplified and have been setup for years.
- Recommendations for the future of learning mobility programmes for sport:
The Commission should set clear and as many criteria as possible in order to give a precise framework for the participants. A small margin could be offered to adapt to individual projects. Regarding the duration, 1 year seems to be the most relevant period to discover and getting adapted to a new country.
It was emphasised that often, what is missing in mobility or even in European projects as a whole, is the connection between the ideas and their implementation. For Mr Weiss, the focus should be put into developing and educating experts in “social techniques” allowing the two worlds to be connected. Sports cultures could be used as this connection between the two
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 94
worlds as it is a multidisciplinary field.
Furthermore, two recommendations should be addressed to the Commission:
- They should take into consideration the sociological factors to write the programs. Mobility is perceived differently depending on the sex, the studies, social background etc.
- They should keep in mind the fact that having project briefs/applications written in English is not neutral as it presumed that behind the language there is also an English way of thinking and expectation for the bids. This language issue is fundamental as it is the main tool to overcome national differences and create a common “European feeling”. Ways of thinking are rooted in languages, and having English as a common language is a barrier to this feeling as it is rooted in the culture of England.
j) Interview with Emilie Coconnier, European Association for Sport Employers
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED BASED ON QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE:
They have always been partners in these kinds of programs, although it was seen as too difficult to have taken part in European projects of mobility as a leader due to a lack of resources.
HER VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS
- For individual participants:
Language can be a barrier for the participants of mobility programs. It is a French problem, when an exchange is organised, it as to be in French or many French participants, do not want to take part. In the framework of EASE, she is more informed of the organisational barriers than of the individual barriers.
- For organisations who wish to send/receive participants:
The most important barrier comes from the administrative difficulties and the huge financial and administrative constraint put on participants by the European commission in these programs. To be part of a European project of mobility, you need to spend too much time in administrative aspects whereas you should spend more time on the content of the programs.
EASE is always motivated by these kinds of programs but mainly when they are linked to European social dialogue. They are interested in mobility because it is also a concern of their employer members. The employers want to be informed of these themes and opportunities because they will hire people who will take part in the mobility programs.
They do see and understand the interest of these projects but they have to base their involvement on financial and human resources. In France, they always give the priority to the national level in comparison with the European level.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT:
- Are there specific national issues that need to be considered?
No
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 95
- Recommendations for engagement and application processes:
The European Commission should simplify these processes.
- Recommendations for the programs (e.g. objectives, eligible criteria, duration etc.):
These programs are adapted to the field of sport. But most of the time a project is part of a long term strategy and it is difficult to perceive the results of it.
French National Agency Report
Interview with Christelle Castelain – French National Agency (Phone discussion)
As a preamble, it was clarified that the National Agency does not have a specific expertise in sport.
THEIR VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS TO LEARNING MOBILITY:
Concerning the main barriers identified in the questionnaire, such as financial constraints, administration and creating partnerships, it was agreed that they could apply to most sectors and do not appear as being only sports related.
She exposed the two ways they deal with sports through the projects submitted:
Firstly, sport is used as a thematic within the framework of a submitted project. The main topic is often related to health or education and sport is used as a supporting element to achieve the main goals of the project.
Secondly, while looking more deeply into projects relating only to sports, the Agency observes that only a few sports organisations have submitted projects and, according to the Agency, this might not increase in the future as the criteria set for the new mobility programmes will be stricter.
Consequently, sports structures will face problems for which they are not yet prepared, especially accountability and solvability issues. Sports organisations are often too small to handle big budgets. Only big structures, having human, economic and management resources will be able to handle projects, such as, for France, INSEP or ProFitness, structures that already applied in the past. Furthermore, she indicated that, with no specific regard to sport, only one third of Leonardo applications are successful, which shows the level of commitment and demand necessary to get a mobility application approved.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The sport sector has not yet been a sectoral priority for the National Agency, but it could be a lead area in 2014. However, and this is not the opinion of the Agency but of the contact person, there are doubts on the interest of having a specific program for sports. Having sports treated as any other field, but increasing the awareness of the sports organisations would probably be enough as the programs already exist.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 96
5.2.4 German National Consultation
National Consultation Reports
a) Guido Cools, Head of International Co-operation, Regional Sports Federation, Brandenburg
b) Maria Acs, Responsible for international youth exchange, Sport Youth, Berlin
c) Volkmar Ritter, President Karate Federation, Brandenburg
a) Phone consultation on 2 October 2013 with Guido Cools, Head of International Co-operation, Brandenburgische Sportjugend im LSB Brandenburg e.V. (Regional sports federation Brandenburg). Mr. Cools participated at and managed several mobility projects funded by the Youth in Action, Grundtvig and Leonardo programmes.
HIS VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS:
- For individual participants
The biggest barrier for most individual participants is their availability (free time) to participate in a mobility project.
- For organisations who wish to send/receive participants
A barrier is to find participants that are interested in joining a mobility project in the field of sport. Furthermore Mr. Cools several stated that some project partners were accepted by their national agencies whereas some other partners were refused. This leads to the situation that the remaining partnership was much smaller and more unbalanced than foreseen.
An additional barrier for many organisations is the missing network on an international level. In his opinion it is crucial that the partner organisations know each other in beforehand to be able to judge if the partners are reliable and have the needed experience with EU-projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT:
- Are there specific national issues that need to be considered?
As the German organized sport structures are very strong and elaborated, some sports federations do not see the benefit of joining an EU-project as they are of the opinion that they won’t learn much from other project partners. Likewise Germans and other bigger European member states sometimes need to acknowledge and accept that there might be an added value for them when collaborating with partners from smaller countries with less organized sport structures.
- Recommendations for engagement and application processes
Smaller sport organisations usually do not have the capacity to apply for European funding, therefore it is necessary to accept contributions in kind (volunteers) and to have an adequate budget for staff costs.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 97
- Recommendations for the programs (e.g. objectives, eligible criteria, duration etc)
There should be as many calls for applications as possible during the year. It is not enough to only have one call per year. Furthermore, there should be the possibility to apply for smaller mobility projects with smaller budgets and a shorter duration. In Mr. Cools’ experience it is already difficult enough to find participants for mobility projects so his fear is if they last too long, people will leave during the during of the project which will have an impact on the quality of the project.
Concerning the eligibility criteria, there should be a bigger focus on the ability of the consortium to implement a project than on the written application. Some applications are very well written but not very realistic when it comes to the implementation. It should be equally or even more important that the applicant and the partner organisations can prove a profound knowledge in project management.
There should be the possibility to apply for smaller and shorter mobility projects within the sport chapter of Erasmus+ to be able to attract enough participants and to allow smaller organisations to take part as well.
- Recommendations to address the barriers for individuals and organisations in future
There should be an adequate budget for staff costs as many sports organisations do not have the capacity to apply and implement and EU-project without financial support. Also in smaller projects a part of the budget should be foreseen for staff-costs (contrary to some measures within the current Grundtvig or Youth in Action in which there is no budget for staff costs included).
Furthermore, the National Agencies or executive agencies should help interested organisations to find partners that are interested in a specific topic, for example through info days, internet databases, etc.
b) Phone consultation on 16 October with Maria Acs, Responsible for international youth exchange, Sportjugend (Sport Youth) Berlin. Ms. Acs participated at several mobility projects funded by the Grundtvig and the Youth in Action programmes.
HER VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS:
- For individual participants
Ms. Acs reported difficulties to find participants for mobility projects and EU projects in general. Her current experience with a Grundtvig mobility project is that some participants quit during the lifetime of the project so they had to find new participants.
In her opinion it is very difficult for new (individual) participants to understand the functioning of an EU project, the topic of the project and to contribute to the outcomes of the project.
Individual participants also very often face language problems within an EU mobility project.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 98
- For organisations who wish to send/receive participants
Barriers are the missing capacity of smaller organisations and federations to get engaged in European projects in general and a missing network on an international level.
- Recommendations for the future of learning mobility programmes for sport:
There should be enough budget for staff costs.
- Are there specific national issues that need to be considered?
The German organised sport structure is very well organized and quite strong but there is not enough communication between the different actors on national level.
German sport very much relies on volunteers but as contributions in kind are not always possible within European projects it is difficult to include them in the projects.
- Recommendations for engagement and application processes
It would be helpful to have national contact points that could support project applicants on national level. Ms. Acs has very good experience with the National Agencies and very much thinks that there won’t be any contact for the implementation of the sport chapter.
- Recommendations for the programs (e.g. objectives, eligible criteria, duration etc)
In general learning mobility programmes for sport should not be too academic (which doesn’t mean that they should not be of high quality) but have a more practical approach.
Concerning the duration of the projects it would be better to also have shorter periods such as one year projects or even projects that only last a couple of weeks or months.
There should be more “flat rates” for travel and accommodation costs. There should be less bureaucratic and administrative burdens in general, especially if the future sports programme is addressed at the grassroots level.
- Recommendations to address the barriers for individuals and organisations in future
There should be a budget for interpreters foreseen in the budget to attract more sports people for the leaning mobility projects. There should be enough budget for staff costs so that especially smaller organisations are able to hire support for the correct implementation of the projects.
The European Commission should offer more templates for project leaflets, websites, handouts, newsletters etc. to save money for layouts and time.
c) Phone consultation on 18 October with Volkmar Ritter, President Karate Dachverband Brandenburg e.V (German Karate Federation Brandenburg)
HIS VIEW ON IDENTIFIED BARRIERS:
- For individual participants
One barrier for individual participants is the language. Some project partners do not even speak
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 99
English, which makes it very difficult to communicate and to produce a project outcome. Availability of participants is also a barrier.
- For organisations who wish to send/receive participants
The biggest barrier is the capacity of the organisation. Only very few organisations such as the regional umbrella organisations have staff members that are responsible for international corporations. Many small organisations such as the Karate federation rely on volunteers or part- time staff members that work on the European projects in their free time.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT:
- Are there specific national issues that need to be considered?
The German organized sport structures are much more developed than in many other EU member states which, does not mean that German sport organisations cannot learn new approaches and ideas from others.
German sports organisations very much rely on the work of volunteers (difficult for EU projects).
- Recommendations for engagement and application processes
There should be less administrative burden for the project applicant and project guidelines need to be easier to understand.
There should be more information available on future project possibilities on national level.
There should be more flexibility concerning application deadlines/there should be more application calls per year.
- Recommendations for the programs (e.g. objectives, eligible criteria, duration etc)
Learning mobility projects in sport should not last longer than two years; shorter periods would be even better. The “own contribution part” should be smaller to allow smaller organisations to participate in the projects.
There should be more flat rates and less administration. There should be the possibility to get funding for follow-up projects of successful projects. In general the mobility programs should be easier to access for grassroots organisations.
There should be a budget for interpretation if needed to facilitate communication within the partnership of the projects.
- Recommendations to address the barriers for individuals and organisations in future programs (based on the barrier identified)
There should be more assistance for sports organisations that are interesting in applying for European funding from the National Agencies or national contact points.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 100
5.2.5 Italian National Consultation
a) Qualitative consultation
The data collection was structured as a one to one consultation led by the national expert during the month of September 2013.
Following the Guidelines for National Consultation Phase, key individuals have been identified and consulted with the aim to gain more in depth information on barriers, obstacles and opportunities regarding the sport sector’s participation in learning mobility programmes. Furthermore, possible recommendations to the European Commission about the future funding of mobility opportunities for sport within the forthcoming Erasmus+ programme have been discussed at length.
Specifically, the following key individuals have been consulted:
[1] A representative of the University;
[2] A representative of the Italian National Agency LLP;
[3] A representative of the National Sport Federation;
[4] A representative of the Olympic Movement.
Information and evidence derived from the consultation are reported in the following subsections.
b) General description of individuals interviewed
For individuals have been interviewed: [1] Senior researcher and expert, consultant for several National Sports Federation has developed a large knowledge in the area of the lifelong learning section with a specific focus on the sport sector; [2] Representative of the Italian National Agency LLP; she has a wide experience as project manager; [3] Responsible for the training and research department; expert in the area validation of informal and non-formal education; [4] Senior lecture, expert in the area validation of informal and non-formal education; Labour market and training/education are also key areas of investigation.
c) Main findings
Barriers to success
Lack of awareness and expertise: A general lack of awareness about available opportunities in terms of learning mobility is reported. Potential beneficiaries (organisations, participants, etc) have little access to information about specific calls, potential partners, and opportunities available in terms of participations (both as partner organisations and as individual participants). Specifically, the lack of awareness is more evident in the sport sector in which organisations have a weak interest in learning mobility programmes. The involvement of organisations as project leaders is very limited and the participation of individuals is small. As a consequence, a general lack of expertise is reported within organisations that, when involved in a learning mobility programme, are inclined to have a secondary role. This is despite the fact that, as a general trend, organisations in Italy have a large interest and involvement in EU funding programmes. -1- reports a lack of interest in the sport sector with organisations that are scarcely interested in the development of specific projects in collaboration with the University; -2- underlines the fact that, in
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 101
the sport sector, there is a general lack of specific competence and skills. This results with a low number of projects implemented by and developed for sports organisations; -3-argues that the lack of interest of sport organisations results with a low level of expertise; -4- reports a lack of awareness: the Olympic Movement in Italy tends to have a scarce interest.
Lack of interest: A general lack of interest for learning mobility programmes is reported For the key actors operating within the sport sector (coaches, manager, etc.). Such activities are not taken into account as relevant for the development of personal skills and knowledge. Furthermore, they are not considered as important in terms of employability. This is not necessarily the case for university students.
-1- reports a lack of interest; he maintains that people operating in the sport sector do not see a benefit in terms of employability. This is less evident for university students; -2- underlines the need, as the National Agency, to generate an interest among the key actors of the sport sector; -3- argues that there is a general lack of interest; sport organisations consider learning mobility as an area of “low” priority; -4- again reports a lack of awareness: the Olympic Movement in Italy tends to have a scarce interest.
Cost/benefit ratio: There is a perceived high level of investment in terms of resources required for the development of a successful application, which might result with a significant negative effect for the organisation in terms of resources. Such kind of activities does not represent a priority for the sport sector.
-1-, -2-, -3-, -4- have a common opinion: learning mobility is not, at the moment, a priority for the sport sector.
Opportunities
The web platform http://www.programmallp.it (managed by the Italian National Agency) provides information and support for organisations and individuals interested in learning mobility programmes. National Sports Federations are nowadays giving a higher priority to transnational collaborations with European partners with the aim of improving activities and learning opportunities for athletes, coaches, managers, etc.
The collaboration between Universities and National Federations seems to be an opportunity for the development of new projects in the near future.
-1- argues that their University is now considering leaning mobility as an opportunity for students; - 2- underlines the efforts made by the National Agency to support organisations and individuals interested in developing specific projects; -4- reports the collaboration between Universities and the Olympic Movement as an opportunity for the future.
Benefits
As general consideration, it is believed that potential benefits are more related to individuals than to organisations. This is quite clear from the analysis of the discourses collected. At individual level, the participation in learning mobility programmes is seen as a significant step in terms of personal development. Learning in a dynamic context; attending intensive programmes focused on specific, practical themes, is seen as means to strongly develop personal skills and competencies. Benefits for
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 102
organisations are referred to in more general terms: the opportunity to enlarge networks and consolidate pre-existing partnerships; the possibility to step into a European dimension; the possibility to share knowledge and good practice.
For what specifically concerns National Sport Federations, a potential collaboration with other European Federations is seen as an opportunity to further develop sport disciplines that, at national level, are considered as ”minor”. Having coaches, managers, etc involved in learning mobility programmes is therefore seen as part of a strategy for the development of specific sport disciplines.
-1- considers learning mobility as an opportunity for individuals; an individual has more benefits from such activities rather than an organisation; -2- argues that learning mobility programmes offer the opportunity to step into an European perspective; -3- considers learning mobility as an opportunity to strengthen competence and skills of the workforce; -4- argues that learning mobility can represent an opportunity for the development of specific sport disciplines.
Recommendations
Make organisations operating in the sport system more and more aware of the potential benefits of learning mobility programmes. Develop an ad-hoc campaign of information, targeting specifically National Sport Federations and sport clubs with the aim of enhancing awareness of the role that learning mobility programmes might have in the development of the sport system.
Promote coordinated networks in which information and news might easily circulate. Stimulate organisations to consider learning mobility as a strategic asset of their activities and as a key element in the management of their human resources. The EU, in close collaboration with the National Agencies, the National Olympic Committees, should develop campaigns, recommendations, etc. targeting the sport sector. National Agencies should offer their support for those organisations willing to develop a learning mobility programme.
The National Olympic Committee and University should represent key organisations at national level. They should play an active role in facilitating the circulation of information and supporting the development of successful projects.
-1- underlines the need to develop partnerships and collaboration among the key actors operating in the sport system; -2- argues the need to include the sport sector in the decision processes; -3- and - 4- see the need for the Olympic movement to take an active role in the development of strategies promoting learning mobility programmes.
5.2.6 Lithuanian National Consultation
Round Table Report
Round Table consultation organised on 10/09/2013 in Vilnius (Lithuania) Department of Physical Education and Sports under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Participants: Education Exchanges Support Foundation, Lithuanian Union of Sport Federations, Lithuanian Ice Hockey Federation, Lithuanian Swimming Federation, Lithuanian Boxing Federation, Lithuanian Track-and-Field Federation, Lithuanian Cycling Federation, Lithuanian
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 103
Rugby Federation, Lithuanian hockey Federation, Lithuanian kyokushin karate Federation, Lithuanian Skiing Federation, Lithuanian Rowing Federation, Lithuanian Automobile Sport Federation (LASF), Lithuanian Golf Federation, Lithuanian Handball Federation, Lithuanian Wrestling Federation, Lithuanian Volleyball federation, Vilnius city municipality administration education, culture and sport division, Public establishment “Sveikas miestas” (“Healthy city”), established by Vilnius city municipality, Public establishment “SVVOT”, Mykolas Romeris University.
Agenda:
1. Introduction and welcome
2. Background to the Learning Mobility Project (definition of “learning mobility”; the new proposed Erasmus+ provision for Learning Mobility)
3. Your Experiences – a short round the table review of your experiences and involvement with Learning Mobility: how have you been involved or have tried to be involved? What was the structure of the activity? What were the benefits and the barriers?
4. Initial feedback from the questionnaire: presentation of findings and a comparison of EU and Lithuanian data
5. Shaping the future – to brainstorm the recommendations: – What do you think the opportunities for mobility should be? – How can sport participate? – What are the barriers to participation? How can they be removed? – Recommendations for the future – Is sport ready to take the opportunity?
PAST EXPERIENCE AND PERCEPTIONS: THE VIEW OF THE PARTICIPANTS
- Experiences and benefits
The centralised application to the Leonardo program through the Lithuanian Union of Sport Federations (LUSF) is very well accepted by all sport federations. During 7 years of activity, LUSF have implemented 9 Leonardo da Vinci projects mobility projects through the Lifelong Learning program. 7 of them involved sport coaches and 2 of them sport managers from different federations. 54 federations have been partners in LUSF projects.
More than 200 sport coaches from various federations were undertaking mobility activities in various EU federations, clubs and other public authorities. 32 sport managers representing 32 federations have implemented their knowledge in Scotland.
The International Automobile Federation (FIA) annually organises seminars for international category referees on the topics associated with both general and specific aspects of auto sports (rally, F1, etc.), such as: security, environmental protection, and attracting volunteers, etc. Most importantly, seminars are paid for by the International Federation. Also there are short (3 day)
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 104
seminars every year, but due to a high level of applications it is hard to get a place. Usually programs are quite intensive and useful.
Ice hockey seminars are traditionally held in Finland for 10 days and organized 1-2 times a year before the World Championships. The program is very intensive and effective. Participants are coaches, managers, athletes, totalling about 500 people. It is organised by the International Federation. The most important benefits are: learning and understanding how different activities should be organized, managed and evaluated in Ice hockey at national and club levels.
Through the LUSF, a learning mobility seminar in shooting sports took place in Scotland for 2 weeks this year. The most useful experience was in basic project management and strategy development, implementation, distribution of activities, control, etc. as well as the holding of various meetings with shooting sport representatives from Scotland.
Since 2000, karate has taken an active role in learning mobility. 34 coaches during the last 4 years participated in mobility projects organized by LUSF. After the learning mobility activity had taken place, the federation organised seminars for coaches to share their knowledge and skills. It was confirmed that karate has also explored learning mobility opportunities through its International Federation.
- Barriers identified: Too much paperwork before and after mobility has taken place Difficulties to sport federation in matching their activity calendar and application dates coordinated by LUSF Lack of human resources in the sport federations in order to explore learning mobility opportunities more consistently Sometimes it is difficult to find a proper host organisation for learning mobility Lack of understanding that athletes as well as volunteers could take part in learning mobility programs Some people do not want to take responsibility and are not ready for changes Lack of skills to take on board new information and best practices and implement them into the context of the local sport organisation.
- Opportunities: Same political agreements at national level towards especially small federations to act centralised via LUFS is needed Closer co-operation and information provision schemes with national agencies are needed in the future More networks inside the country with all stakeholders in sport the sector are needed.
SHAPING THE FUTURE
- Brainstorming New opportunities from the national agency as well as from LUSF and other national
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 105
sport bodies are needed to be presented much more in advance Sometimes it is difficult to select eligible individuals for learning mobility inside a sport federation Learning mobility opportunities for non-professional athletes and especially volunteers need to be more elaborated due to the current development of the concept of duel careers as well as voluntarism at a national level.
- Recommendations More and consistent information is requested about learning mobility opportunities from LUSF A data base of existing learning mobility programs is needed To establish an additional full time position in project management within LUSF To explore learning mobility opportunities using more individual study visits as well as other programs: Nord-Plus, etc. To create a promoting information campaign – “I want, I can, I do, I act”.
- Final remark
An agreement was made between LUSF (and it members - sport federations) and the National Agency to arrange a meeting in October when the Erasmus+ scheme will be clear and discuss learning mobility opportunities as well as other key actions in the future.
It was agreed that sports organisations need to be active towards key objective 2 of the new Erasmus+ and that this be promoted by the national agency as useful for the sport sector in general.
Dissemination activity after the event: http://www.lsfs.lt/
5.2.7 Spanish National Consultation
National Consultation Reports
a) Antonio Garcia Plata, Spanish Sports People Association b) Carlos Pazos Ríos, Municipality of Corcubión, Galicia c) Cristina López de Subijana, Technical University of Madrid – Faculty of Physical Education National Institute (INEF) d) Enrique Martín Durán, Royal Spanish Golf Federation e) Luis Cereijo Tejedor, University of Alcalá – Faculty of Medicine and Health Science/ Former President of Spanish Association of Sport University Students f) Mª José Rodríguez, Club Deportivo Aros 5 g) Marta Arévalo Baeza, University of Alcala – Faculty of Medicine and Health Science h) Vicente Gambau i Pinasa, University of La Coruña – Faculty of Sport Science and Physical Education
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 106
a) Consultation with Antonio García Plata , Training Director, Spanish Sportspeople Association. Phone conversation on 17 September 2013.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED ASK BASED ON QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE:
General information about his experience, knowledge and involvement in mobility programs
She thinks that mobility Spanish Sportspeople Association is unsure about Mobility Programs due to the benefits that would result to Spanish sportspeople. They have never participated in any mobility program but they would be willing to.
Mobility programs would be beneficial for the country and the sector because of the expansion of professionals would make finding a job quite easy; it would be beneficial for the sportspeople because it opens new possibilities for sportspeople in the present and in the future.
Mobility programmes would be important for athletes in a percentage of 80%, for coaches 10%, for non for profit organisation staff 5% and for volunteers 5%.
New countries from the Middle East should be considered as partners in these programmes because they ask for Spanish sportspeople to be coaches in their countries in the future. Also, South American countries would be important because of Spanish language.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT
Are there specific national issues that need to be considered
She thinks that mobility Spanish sportspeople have a shortage in terms of language skills. Spanish sportspeople would participate in these programmes if their family could be part of them.
Recommendations for engagement and application processes
Mobility programs longer than one year would be more accepted for sportspeople.
Recommendations to address the barriers for individuals and organisations in the future programs
Amateur athletes Agreements between clubs of the same discipline to prevent interruption of their sport career. Valid certificates of the skills learnt to prevent lack of recognition and/or reward Tax relief of the expenses caused by the mobility programs to avoid financial constraints. Make previous training and language skills a prerequisite to prevent a lack of intercultural and language skills. Sportspeople who have participated in previous mobility programmes should be used as examples of good practice to prevent a lack of conviction about the benefits of the programmes.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 107
b) Consultation with Carlos Pazos Ríos, Sport officer, Municipality of Corcubión, Galicia. Phone consultation on September 10th 2013.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED BASED ON QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE:
General information about his experience, knowledge and involvement in mobility programs.
Carlos has never participated in a Mobility Program but he knows of them due to his time at University. He didn’t participate in a Mobility Program because he thought it would take time away from studying.
He thinks that mobility programs would benefit Spain and the sector because of sport culture exchanges; it would also be beneficial for professionals because it gives ideas of different ways of working and for people because it gives personal experience.
Mobility programmes would be important for athletes in a percentage of 30%, for coaches 30%, for non for profit organisation staff 20% and for volunteers 20%.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT
Are there specific national issues that need to be considered
She thinks that the economic situation in Spain does not allow some students to study what they want.
There are hundreds of sport professionals very well prepared to get into the labour market but they have not enough choices.
Recommendations for engagement and application processes
To give more information about other countries to go through a Mobility Program.
To make participation in Mobility Program for professionals an obligatory part of their lifelong learning.
To include other non EU countries on the mobility programmes would be beneficial, e.g. United States because of the link between University and Sport or Cuba where the promotion of physical activity is one of the priorities of the Government.
Recommendations to address the barriers for individuals and organisations in the future programs (based on the barrier identified)
Athletes, coaches, non for profit organisations staff and volunteers: To award points for internal promotion to prevent lack of recognition and/or reward. To show examples of professionals who have participated in mobility programs to avoid doubts on a programme’s quality. Give 100% grants to prevent financial constraints. Give previous training (e.g. English language classes) to prevent lack of intercultural and language skills.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 108
c) Consultation with Cristina López de Subijana, University teacher, Technical University of Madrid – Faculty of Physical Education National Institute (INEF). Phone conversation on 05th September 2013.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED BASED ON QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE:
General information about her experience, knowledge and involvement in mobility programs.
Cristina was Erasmus coordinator at her Faculty as a sending institution.
It gave her advantages in terms of job opportunities, contacts and knowledge of research centres abroad and there were no perceived disadvantages.
She thinks that mobility programs will be beneficial for Spain because of new communications between countries; for the sector because they will draw on the progress of other systems; for the University because they will give knowledge about the labour market; and for the people because they will help the individual to develop in many ways.
Mobility programmes will be important for athletes at a percentage of 20%, for coaches 30%, for non for profit organisation staff 30% and for volunteers 20%.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT
Are there specific national issues that need to be considered
Open communications with USA or Australia.
Elaborate group networks (federation network, university network, etc.) to coordinate them.
Create different subsector sports sponsorships to fund each type of stakeholder.
Recommendations for engagement and application processes
Create a mobility programmes webpage which includes a mobility programmes calendar/schedule.
Briefing sessions with public administrations and main stakeholders to let them know the importance of sport mobility programmes.
Offer small mobility programmes only for language learning.
Offer big mobility programmes only with labour guarantees.
To include other non EU countries on the mobility programmes will be beneficial. USA would give knowledge about the university system and sport scholarships; Australia about sport research; Russia and Cuba about talent selection and sport planning.
Recommendation for the programmes (e.g. objectives, eligible criteria, duration, etc.)
Each Member State has a model and a different sport structure, so, although the European strategy is common, the ways and channels of information and communication
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 109
in each country should be different.
The economic contributions for each country should be monitored and then evaluate the success rate accordingly.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS THE BARRIERS FOR INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANISATIONS IN THE FUTURE PROGRAMS
Athletes
Create networks between clubs of the same discipline to prevent interruption of their sport career.
Establish better ways of communicating with relevant organisations to prevent their lack of knowledge so they can support athletes.
Make their experience on mobility programmes valued at their job to prevent lack of recognition and/or reward.
Create a unique template to prevent administrative hurdles.
Show successful examples of labour integration to prevent doubts on programme’s quality.
Obtain sport brand sponsorship to prevent financial constraints.
Coaches
Recognition of participation in mobility programmes as a complementary training to prevent their lack of awareness of mobility programmes opportunities, lack of recognition and/or reward and lack of conviction of coaches about the advantages. This recognition must be given by national federations.
Elaborate common templates to prevent administrative hurdles.
Show examples of a coach’s professional career 2 or 3 years after participating in a mobility programme to prevent doubts on programme’s quality.
Obtain sport brand sponsorship or travel grants to prevent financial constraints.
Complementary language training to prevent the lack of knowledge of other languages.
Non for profit organisations staff
National sport recognition to prevent lack of support and lack of awareness of mobility programmes opportunities of relevant organisations.
Award points for internal promotion to prevent a lack of recognition and/or reward.
Elaborate same templates to prevent administrative hurdles.
Show examples of non for profit organisations’ staff 2 or 3 years after participating in mobility programmes to prevent doubts on programme’s quality.
Obtain sport brand sponsorship, special banking credits or travel grants to prevent
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 110
financial constraints.
Volunteers
Create a transnational volunteers network to prevent lack of awareness of mobility programmes opportunities and lack of support from relevant organisations and to erase administrative hurdles.
Housing to volunteers to prevent financial constraints.
Complementary language training to prevent the lack of knowledge of other languages.
d) Consultation with Enrique Martín Durán, Training Director, Royal Spanish Golf Federation. Phone consultation on 11th September 2013.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED BASED ON QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE:
General information about his experience, knowledge and involvement in mobility programs.
Enrique has not participated in a Mobility program but he decided to move to America to complete his studies on his own. He paid his flight ticket, his accommodation and his training at a private golf facility in the United States.
Mobility programmes will be important for athletes in a percentage of 55%, for coaches 20%, for non for profit organisation staff 15% and for volunteers 10%.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT
Are there specific national issues that need to be considered
Rate of unemployment and economic situation.
Recommendations for engagement and application processes
To include other non EU countries on the mobility programmes would be beneficial. USA would give knowledge about research systems.
Recommendations to address the barriers for individuals and organisations in the future programs
Athletes, coaches, and non for profit organisations staff
Create networks between federations of the same sport to prevent interruption of sport careers.
Make their experience on mobility programmes valued at their job to prevent lack of recognition and/or reward.
To provide professional tutors to prevent doubts on programme’s quality.
Give previous training to prevent lack of intercultural and language skills.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 111
e) Consultation with Luis Cereijo Tejedor, Student and sport researcher, University of Alcalá – Faculty of Medicine and Health Science/ Former President of Spanish Association of Sport University Student. Phone conversation on September 16th, 2013.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED BASED ON QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE:
General information about his experience, knowledge and involvement in mobility programs.
Luis participated in an Erasmus Programme so it let him complete his Sport Science Degree at the Faculty of Sports of Milan.
He says he would have liked to participate in more than one Mobility Program as a student but he didn’t find a website where all the possibilities were visible for all people and describing all the characteristics of each opportunity.
He thinks that mobility programs will be beneficial for the country because Spain is blocked by conservative ways of education; it would be beneficial for the sector because the Spanish economy needs to be European; and it would be beneficial for students and people because they might learn new pedagogical ways of teaching sports.
Mobility programmes would be important, in his opinion, for athletes at a percentage of 25%, for coaches 35%, for non for profit organisation staff 25% and for volunteers 10%.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT
Are there specific national issues that need to be considered There is no regulation of the sport sector so lots of people work in our sector with no qualifications. Lack of communication between public administration and citizenship. Voluntary system in Spain is not the same as the voluntary system in Europe.
Recommendations for engagement and application processes Mobility pilot programme. Identification of sport stakeholders.
Recommendations to address the barriers for individuals and organisations in the future programs (based on the barrier identified)
Athletes, coaches, non for profit organisations staff and volunteers Networking between clubs and federations of the same discipline to prevent interruption of sport careers. Include mobility programs within the general budget of the organisation to avoid lack of support from relevant organisations. Establish grants depending on background and economic situation to avoid financial constraints. Give previous training to prevent a lack of intercultural and language skills.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 112
Make the experience on mobility programmes valued for coaches and non for profit staff as if they are working.
f) Consultation with, Mª José Rodríguez, Gymnastics coach, Club Deportivo Aros 5 Phone consultation on 13 September 2013.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED BASED ON QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE:
General information about his experience, knowledge and involvement in mobility programs. Mª José participated in a national mobility program in the 80’s through his university. Mobility programmes are beneficial because they bring knowledge to the people, relationships between stakeholders and new legislation from other countries. Mobility programmes would be important for athletes at a percentage of 15%, for coaches 70%, for non for profit organisation staff 10% and for volunteers 5%.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT
Are there specific national issues that need to be considered Economic situation
Recommendations for engagement and application processes Advertising campaigns through the federations.
Recommendations to address the barriers for individuals and organisations in the future programs (based on the barrier identified)
Coaches Create networks between clubs of the same discipline to prevent interruption of sport careers. Provide guarantees that after participating in a programme participants can easily get a job as a coach to prevent lack of recognition and/or reward. Give grants to the coaches depending on their family incomes to prevent financial constraints. Give previous training (e.g. English language classes) or a level of English as a prerequisite to prevent lack of intercultural and language skills.
g) Consultation with Marta Arévalo Baeza, University teacher, University of Alcala – Faculty of Medicine and Health Science. One to one consultation on 12th September 2013.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED BASED ON QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE:
General information about her experience, knowledge and involvement in mobility programs
Marta participated in a mobility program three times as student and as teacher.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 113
Study visit in Brussels, 1999
Research fellowship/stay at the Sport Unit, 2003
Teacher stay at Teramo University, 2006
Both programs provided her professional experience but she emphasizes the personal experience which guided her towards her career.
She thinks that mobility programs will be beneficial for Spain and the sector because those programs might bring some other foreign ideas that are unknown; it will be beneficial for the people due to the personal experience they provide.
Mobility programmes would be important for athletes at a percentage of 15%, for coaches 35%, for non for profit organisation staff 35% and for volunteers 15%.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT
Are there specific national issues that need to be considered
Rate of unemployment.
Recommendations for engagement and application processes
To create a network between mobility program tutors.
To include other non EU countries on the mobility programmes would be beneficial. Non EU member Mediterranean countries would give some interesting ideas.
Recommendation for the programmes (e.g. objectives, eligible criteria, duration, etc.)
Those students who have already participated in mobility programs should engage with the mobility program tutor.
Recommendations to address the barriers for individuals and organisations in the future programs (based on the barrier identified)
Athletes, coaches, non for profit organisations staff and volunteers
Create networks between clubs of the same discipline to prevent interruption their sport career.
Make their experience on mobility programmes valued (number of hours worked) at their job to prevent lack of recognition and/or reward.
Develop labour surveys to prevent doubts on programme’s quality.
Give the right grants to the people who really want to move to other EU countries to complete their training to prevent financial constraints.
Give prior training (e.g. English language classes) to prevent lack of intercultural and language skills.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 114
h) Consultation with Vicente Gambau i Pinasa, University teacher/President of Spanish Sport Professionals Association, University of La Coruña – Faculty of Sport Science and Physical Education. Phone conversation on September 16th 2013.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED BASED ON QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE:
General information about his experience, knowledge and involvement in mobility programs
Vicente has never participated in a mobility program but as Dean of the Faculty, he established a bilateral agreement with the University of Cuba to give the possibility to students for studying at the International School of Sports and Physical Education placed at San José de las Lajas.
Mobility programmes would be important for athletes at a percentage of 20%, for coaches 30%, for non for profit organisation staff 35% and for volunteers 15%.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LEARNING MOBILITY PROGRAMMES FOR SPORT
Are there specific national issues that need to be considered
Disorganisation of the training system and the labour market: there is a mismatch between education and sport professions.
Recommendations for engagement and application processes
Promotion to the stakeholders representing the sport sector.
Recommendations to address the barriers for individuals and organisations in the future programs (based on the barrier identified)
Athletes, coaches, non for profit organisations staff and volunteers
Create networks between clubs of the same discipline to prevent interruption of sport careers
Standardize training systems to prevent lack of support from relevant organisations.
Tax relief of the expenses caused by the mobility programs to avoid financial constraints.
One-stop registration to avoid administrative hurdles.
Give previous training to prevent lack of intercultural and language skills.
To establish an ADO Plan for Mobility Programmes to avoid financial constraints. Plan ADO is the system adopted by the Spanish Sports Council to fund amateur sportspeople for studying and complete their sport career at the same time.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 115
5.2.8 United Kingdom National Consultation
Round Table Report
Round Table consultation
Held at the Offices of the Sport and Recreation Alliance, 17th July 2013, London (UK)
Participants:
- Lawn Tennis Association – National Sport Federation
- England Basketball – National Sports Federation
- League Football Education – training provider for the Football League
- Liverpool FC – sports club
- Sports Leaders UK – providing sports leadership training and life skills
- Street Games – NGO/charity promoting doorstep sport
- SportsCoach UK – agency supporting coach education and development
- SkillsActive – Sector Skills Council for Sport and Active Leisure
- Navitas Sports - Consultancy and Mobility Support Company
- Talented Athlete Scholarship Scheme – Government supported programme for Dual Careers
- North Herts College – Vocational College involved with AASE programme
- South Gloucestershire College – Vocational College involved with AASE Programme
- Sport and Recreation Alliance – NGO representing Sports Federations in UK
- EOSE Services UK
All the organisations had considered involvement with Learning Mobility.
8 had successfully progressed applications under Leonardo.
2 organisations had made a conscious decision not to proceed with applications.
Agenda: The meeting was structured as an interactive discussion led by EOSE representatives.
1. Introductions
2. Background to the Learning Mobility Project – an introduction from EOSE
a. what is learning mobility
b. the opportunities in the existing programmes
3. Past Experiences and Perceptions – a short round the table review of your experiences and involvement with Learning Mobility. These questions were addressed: a. How have you been involved or have tried to be involved.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 116
b. What was the structure of the activity
c. What were the benefits and the barriers?
4. Initial feedback from the questionnaire – what others have said
a. Presentation of findings by EOSE
5. Shaping the future – the new proposed Erasmus+ provision for Learning Mobility – what changes, what remains the same in the new programme.
6. Brainstorming the recommendations:
a. What do you think the opportunities for mobility should be?
b. How can sport participate?
c. What are the barriers to participation?
d. How can they be removed?
e. Recommendations for the future
f. Is sport ready to take the opportunity?
This summary highlights the main points made by participants in the discursive sessions. As per the agenda above, the background to the project, progress to date and the initial analysis of the online questionnaire was presented.
PAST EXPERIENCE AND PERCEPTIONS
Experience of three organisations not in attendance was highlighted based on conversations that took place prior to the round table meeting. These were put forward to highlight past involvement in mobility programmes from within the sector. a. South Gloucestershire College
Application led by South Gloucestershire College, involving 130 apprentices, selected from a group of 400 from 30 Further Education Colleges in England. 2013 represents the third year of this programme.
All the Apprentices are aged 16-18 and studying the Level 3 (EQF 4) Advanced Apprenticeship in Sporting Excellence. Each student has been selected for the AASE programme by the sport federation and are included in that sport’s elite development programme for their age group. The apprentices represent a diverse group with a variety of social, economic, academic and ethnic backgrounds. 40 live in inner city areas, 52 access Government hardship funding and 32 come from ethnic backgrounds.
The selected apprentices spend between 2 and 4 weeks in Tenerife, depending on their sport. The aim is to offer realistic work and life skill experience in another country that helps towards their future professional sporting career or employment. The Apprentices undertake a training schedule in their sport receiving expert coaching organised through the host country federations, and experience the different climatic conditions and altitude training opportunities that the
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 117
country offers. The host organisation is the FU International Academy which arranges bespoke Spanish lessons and cultural exchanges. In addition, for one week participants work in local schools, organising, managing and delivering activities and coaching camps for local children.
The sports covered include boxing, golf, basketball, and fencing.
Key aspects:
A workbook is completed daily by each apprentice to record and reflect on work undertaken, which is assessed by qualified accompanying staff and contributes towards their final qualification.
Europass is used to add to their CV.
ECVET principles are drawn upon to structure the documents and procedures for the programme. b. Scottish Football Association
Application led by Scottish Football Association.
Over the past 10 years, 1,600 young players from Scottish Football clubs have experienced learning mobility under Leonardo (Initial Vocational Training) undertaking coaching, training and competitive matches in another country as part of their Apprenticeship. Squads of 16 players and 3 coaches have been hosted by Centres of Excellence in Turkey, Spain, France, Portugal and Cyprus. These experiences are recorded in an assessed reflective diary and provide evidence towards the achievement of their Apprenticeship qualifications (under AASE).
In addition over the past 7 years 550 coaches have gained practical coaching experience abroad under Leonardo (VETPRO). These have included coaches working towards their UEFA Pro- Licences. For the past 6 years female coaches have been targeted in the programme and in the past two years the first disabled coaches have been included.
The challenges in the VETPRO programme include the requirement for language skills, which is now a mandatory requirement and the fact that the coaches are either part-time or volunteer and have to balance the mobility period with their main job outside coaching.
The programme has brought huge benefits to the individuals, enabling them to experience different styles of play and cultures and has provided the first opportunity for many of the young people to travel. c. British Council (National Agency for Youth in Action programme)
Participation in sport is rarely the main objective of projects under this programme but it has been successfully used as one of the tools to encourage young people's involvement in international learning, maximise their engagement and support wider aims in developing skills and attitudes.
At the same time, it is recognised that for some young people, sport can the best possible starting-point for any kind of collaborative activity. On this basis, sport was designated one of the Annual Priorities for the Youth in Action
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 118
programme in 2009 (Sport as a tool to promote active citizenship and social inclusion of young people) and again in 2012, projects promoting healthy behaviours, in particular through the promotion of the practice of outdoor activities and grassroots sport, as a means to promote healthy lifestyles as well as to foster social inclusion and the active participation of young people in society.
In the UK, this resulted in 97 sport-related projects being supported in 2012, equivalent to 19% of the total, with a total grant value of € 2,210,617 (20% of the total).
They include Jump through the Rings, a youth exchange for 26 young people (including several with disabilities) from Germany and UK.
Alongside these beneficiary-led projects, the British Council has drawn on its wider organisational connections to explore new opportunities for linking sport and non-formal learning. The British Council's successful joint programme with the English Premier League promotes and supports the learning of English through football with a range of resources aimed at young people and coaches (including lesson plans and ideas).
The Council introduced Youth in Action to leading football clubs from several European countries at successful workshops in 2012 providing clubs to share experiences and best practice in community outreach.
BARRIERS TO SUCCESS - the views of the participants:
- There is a general lack of awareness about mobility – the opportunities and the potential benefits;
- This lack of awareness exists in Further Education (Vocational) colleges as well as in sports organisations;
- There is a lack of resources to prepare and develop applications;
- There is a general lack of expertise and experience in European activities;
- Decision-making processes in some sports organisations are not open to new activities that are not seen as a clear priority and are time/resource intensive;
- The organisations that had not developed bids reported that they did not have sufficient time or “mental energy” to progress this as a priority;
- Difficult to organise the demand;
- Difficult to find the right partners who are also willing to host;
- Significant time investment required with no guarantee of success in the competitive process;
- Problems with defining what a workplace is in sport;
- Sport participation – festivals/matches are excluded in some programmes. It is difficult to devote resources to mobility when there is no guarantee of a successful bid and the system for applications is not trusted.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 119
OPPORTUNITIES:
- The Advanced Apprenticeship in Sporting Excellence (AASE) developed by SkillsActive is a formal apprenticeship programme for 16-18 year olds selected by their sport federation or professional club on the “performance pathway” for their sport and with the potential to reach elite or professional level. This programme is ideal for the Leonardo programme as it offers a structured apprenticeship/traineeship with clear learning framework and assessed outcomes;
- AASE has provided the main route for UK learning mobility in sport and has resulted in the majority of successful applications. Mobility has been tailored into the programme in many sports e.g. basketball, football, boxing;
- There is no awareness of similar apprenticeship in Europe;
- European Sport Federations offer the opportunity for partnerships and placements with other Federations and clubs;
- It is possible to expand existing tours and contacts by adding learning activity;
- More links could be built with Higher Education, currently Further Education is more active.
EXPERIENCES OF PARTICIPATING:
- There was concern that the National Agency lacked an understanding of sport and the specific and special characteristics and requirements of sports training and what constitutes a workplace for sport;
- This results in considerable additional time and bureaucracy in answering additional questions and justifying the structure of the learning programme;
- There is a fear that sports applications may be rejected because of this lack of understanding;
- These questions occur during the contract process but also repeated in the audit.
BENEFITS:
- For those who have been successful with their applications, it is clear that the benefits outweigh the work required in preparation and administration;
- “more learning impact was achieved in 2 weeks than in the rest of the two year programme”
- Significant personal development benefits for young people: o First experience of foreign travel and different culture and language;
- Opportunities to test skills in a new environment , coaching young people from another country;
- Benefits/legacy for the host organisation and its community where different students have returned for successive years to develop and sustain a community programme. Many
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 120
programmes have included community programmes;
- It motivates young people in their learning and attracts people to the course because of the opportunity;
- Sporting benefits include: o access to top level coaching and facilities; o altitude training; o warm weather training and acclimatisation programme opportunities.
- Those released by clubs in the last year of their apprenticeships have been able to be placed for 4 to 6 months with European Clubs to continue their training and as part of an extended trial with another club that has resulted in employment.
SHAPING THE FUTURE EOSE provided a short presentation on the emerging criteria for the new Erasmus+ programme.
BRAINSTORMING:
- Sport and its related activities can successfully participate in the current programmes;
- The benefits of mobility are great and need to continue and be made available to more people;
- The existing programmes provide a wide variety of opportunities for people in sport to participate but awareness must be raised;
- But, national sport structures and the training schedules and demands of National Federations do make it difficult for sportspeople to undertake mobility opportunities UNLESS the Federation takes a lead in building mobility into their programmes;
- There was a concern that a special sport-only fund could limit the opportunities available to sport;
- Concern was expressed about the definitions for a sport programme – for example:
o What is sport – the use of sport in social, community and personal development could be undervalued or excluded;
o Would activities such as youth exchanges that are built around sport or outdoor activities be eligible for the sport programme or could they be excluded from the youth strand of Erasmus+?
o What is a non-professional athlete? This could unintentionally exclude people who would benefit.
o Apprentices in the UK have “employed” status would this make them professional?
o Would the budget be sufficient?
o The bidding process could be remote and less transparent if handled centrally, as seemed to be proposed, but if devolved would the budget be adequate for the
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 121
demand in all countries?
- A sport programme could limit these opportunities particularly in the areas of youth and volunteering;
- Federations and NGOs provide the basis for supporting mobility activity in sport;
- Looking at examples from other sectors, support services and co-ordinating roles are needed to facilitate the involvement of sport. There is not enough experience in sport at the moment and sport is not linked with other sectors/generic providers;
- The key roles were seen to be:
o Provision of information and awareness raising to sport organisations;
o Bid writing;
o Project management and administration support;
o Linking demand – bringing together people from different organisations in a combined bid and programme;
o Finding partners and host/exchange organisations;
o Sharing learning tools;
o Mentoring and quality assurance during programmes.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
- At the start of the meeting the majority of participants favoured the establishment of a separate funding programme for sport BUT by the end of the session the participants agreed unanimously that the potential drawbacks seemed to outweigh the advantages and voted against a special fund.
- However, all recognised that specific attention and activity needed to be directed to sport, at least in the short-term, to enable it to participate.
- Positive examples of the use of sport could be included in the application information and actively promoted to National Agencies.
- Case studies should be used to promote the benefits of mobility to sport organisations.
- National Agencies should be targeted with a view to raising their understanding of sport and the requirements of those working in it.
- Apprenticeship and traineeship models could be developed, promoted and shared as they can provide the strongest framework for learning and mobility.
- Federations and NGOs should be targeted to promote and support mobility through their existing networks.
- Partnerships with sports specialists in Higher Education should be developed to explore ways to provide support for athletes in dual careers enabling them to continue their sport/education activity through mobility.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 122
- Investment is required in creating the infrastructure at a national and European level to support the take up of learning mobility in sport. Consideration could be given to a short- term Preparatory programme to support these recommendations.
- A European awareness programme could be targeted at sport to encourage participation and to support the development of the partnerships leading to mobility.
- A European Exchange Network could be established for sport.
- Participants would welcome a streamlining of the current bidding process.
Research in the UK, including with round table participants, allowed for the collation of various instances of involvement in leaning mobility programmes (including for the coming year).
This is summarised in the following tables. More detailed UK examples can be found in Annex 3.
Leonardo Da Vinci Programmes:
Organisation/ Country Host Number of Length Project Name Dates Participants Visited orga.? participants of stay
North Glasgow Football Coaching- June College/ Sports developing good Lithuania Yes 2 7 days 2008 students practice
England Basketball Oct/ Exit & Progression 16 days Nov Germany No 24 and Enhancement 2011 England programme 2011 Basketball/ Elite England Basketball youth players Sep/ Exit & Progression Oct Denmark No 24 16 days and Enhancement 2012 programme 2012 Oct Street Games/ European Sports 2011 – Spain and Disadvantaged Yes 12 14 days Experience June Austria young people 2013 Sports Coaching Elmwood development at 13th – College & the Swedish 26th Sweden No 44 14 days Dundee College/ Olympic institute – May Sports Students A step nearer the 2012 workplace Lawn Tennis Association/ AASE athletes visit Elite youth to Barcelona Total Mar-13 Spain No 24 14 days players Tennis Academy (Apprentices) North Herts Italian Football College/ Sports Visit Apr-13 Italy No 27 14 days students 2013
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 123
Premier League Football Visit Apr-13 Netherlands No 18 14 days
Enhancing AASE and Exit and Progression 1st June Opportunities (This 2012 to 46 is a pre-season 31st Holland No Participants 14 days tour for ASE May and 6 Adults learners and 2014 involved 3 youth teams) European Player League Football Placement and Education/ Elite Development youth players
(Apprentices) (This is an 1st June extended work 2012 to placement for Sweden and 26 13 31st No individuals Spain Participants weeks May released after 2014 completing ASE Apprentices or Professional Players released up to the age of 21) Sunderland Football Club/ Jul/Aug Football Exchange Netherlands No 23 14 days Youth 2012 footballers
Ilkeston Football Club/ Youth Football Exchange May-14 Spain No 25 14 days footballers
Liverpool Football Club/ Jul/Aug Football Exchange Spain No 28 14 days Youth 2014 footballers Southampton Football Club/ Jul/Aug Football Exchange Spain No 22 14 days Youth 2014 footballers
Oldham Football Jul/Aug Club/ Youth Football Exchange Netherlands No 19 14 days 2014 footballers
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 124
Erasmus Programmes
Host Number of Length Organisation Dates Country Visited orga.? participants of stay
Ongoing; 3rd year students: Spring 1 incoming, 1 5 Sweden (Malmo) Yes time (January - outgoing months May University of Ongoing; 3rd year 5-10 students each Stirling 5 students: one Australia, Canada, year are welcomed; months semester (first or Spain, Sweden, Yes 5-10 students each or a second), or one USA year are going year year abroad
Grundtvig Programmes
Country Host Number of Length Organisation Project Name Dates Visited orga.? participants of stay
6 – 10 October Sweden No 2 4 nights 2012 England 4 -8 (Italian November Yes 1 4 nights Adult 2012 College)
4th – 8th Sweden No 2 March 2013
Adult England North Herts th th Entrepreneurial 8 – 12 (Swedish College Yes 1 4 nights Learning April 2013 Adult College)
28th – 31st Italy No 2 May 2013
9 to 12 October Finland No 3 3 nights 2013
3rd Dec – 7th Italy No Dec 2013
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 125
CHAPTER 6 – ANALYSIS OF THE ACCESSIBILITY TO MOBILITY WITH THE NEW ERASMUS+ AND EUROPE FOR CITIZENS PROGRAMMES (2014-2020)
6.1 DETAILED ACTION PLAN AND WORK ACHIEVED 6.1.1 Detailed action plan
6.1.2 Work completed The objective was to carry out an analysis on one hand of the new Erasmus+ programme 2014-2020 and on the other hand of the Europe for Citizens programme 2014-2020. It is important to mention that the analysis has been managed before the publication of the official elements of the new programmes which were in the process of being approved at the time of the final report.
The analysis focused only on EU funded opportunities aligned with the subject of the Feasibility Study on Learning Mobility.
6.2 THE NEW ERASMUS+ PROGRAMME 2014-2020
6.2.1 Overview
The development of Erasmus+ provides the context for this feasibility study. At the time of writing, the Erasmus+ programme was in the process of being approved and before coming into force needs to be agreed by the Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament. On 19 November 2013 the new programme was adopted by The European Parliament and the final step of the process is now for the Council to adopt the programme.
From 1 January 2014, Erasmus+ will become the new European Union funding programme for education, training, youth and sport under the responsibility of the Directorate-General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) for the next seven years (2014-2020).
It will have a new, streamlined structure that combines the current 7 funding programmes in the sector including the Lifelong Learning Programme (Comenius, Leonardo, Erasmus, Grundtvig and Transversal programmes), Youth in Action, Jean Monnet, Tempus and Erasmus Mundus37.
Erasmus+ aims at improving skills and employability, and modernising education, training and youth work. The programme is going to support activities in education, training, youth and sport in all sectors of lifelong learning including Higher Education, Further Education, adult education, schools, and youth activities.
37 Information about these programmes and actions can be found on the website of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) - http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/index_en.php
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 126
Figure 44: Structure of the Erasmus+ Programme (source: llpUKecorys38)
The new programme is promised to be more user friendly and streamlined in its presentation and processes. It is built on a budget of €14.7 billion which represents a 40% increase in funding across all streams compared to the past Lifelong Learning Programme (2007-2013).
Statistics published by the DGEAC about the new Erasmus+ programme 2014-202039:
- 2 million higher education students will study and train abroad during that period
- 650,000 vocational students will spend part of their VET training abroad
- 200,000 Master’s students will benefit from a new loan guarantee scheme and 25,000 scholarships for Joint Masters Degrees
- 500,000 young people will volunteer abroad and take part in youth exchanges
- 800,000 lecturers, teachers, education staff and youth workers will teach or train abroad
- 25,000 strategic partnerships involving 125,000 Institutions and organisations
- 300 Knowledge Alliances and Sector Skills Alliances involving 3500 Institutions
- 200,000 teachers collaborating on-line in 100,000 schools through e-twinning
- Education and Training will account for 77.5% of the total Erasmus+ budget
- Youth will account 10% of the total budget
- Student loan guarantees 3.5% of the total budget
- Jean Monnet 1.9% of the total budget
- Sport Chapter 1.8% of the total budget
38 LlpUK ecorys The UK’s Leonardo, Grundtvig and Transversal programme blog - http://llpukecorys.com/ 39 Press release from the European Commission, 19 November 2013, “Green light for Erasmus+: More than 4 million to get EU grants for skills and employability” - http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1110_en.htm?locale=FR
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 127
Breakdown of the Erasmus+ budget split by sector of education:
- Higher Education - 43% of the total budget
- Vocational Education and Training (VET) - 22%
- Schools Education - 15%
- Adult Education - 5%
Figure 45: Budget breakdown of the new Erasmus+ Programme (source: DGEAC)
6.2.2 Structure of the Erasmus+ Programme
The programme will be organised under 3 Key actions:
KEY ACTION 1: Learning mobility of individuals
This Key Action provides opportunities for individuals to travel to another participating country in order to study, work, teach, train or develop professional skills and competences to enhance their employability and gain cultural awareness.
This Key Action 1 will mainly support mobility for:
Learners - higher education students, Vocational Education and Training (VET) students, apprentices and trainees, volunteers, and young people
Staff - teachers, lecturers, professors, trainers, youth workers, staff of education institutions and civil society organisations to undertake a learning experience in another country for up to one year.
At least 63% of the budget of the new Erasmus+ programme is expected to be applied to activities of Key Action 1.
KEY ACTION 2: Co-operation for innovation and exchange of good practices
This Key Action is about enabling organisations to work together in order to improve their provision for learners and share innovative practices.
The following activities will be supported by Key Action 2:
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 128
Strategic Partnerships aimed at developing joint initiatives and promoting the exchange of experience between organisations involved in education, training and youth or in other relevant fields (Decentralised projects managed by National Agencies)
Large scale partnerships entitled “Knowledge Alliances” and “Sector Skills Alliances” between Higher education and VET Institutions and enterprises aimed at promoting creativity, innovation, entrepreneurship as well as skills-matching between education and the labour market.
Capacity-building projects supporting co-operation with third countries neighbouring the EU in the fields of education and youth (Centralised activities managed by the European Commission’s Executive Agency (EACEA)
IT Support Platforms and on-line services for teachers and practitioners.
It is announced that at least 28% of the total budget will be allocated to activities covered through Key Action 2.
KEY ACTION 3: Support for policy reforms
This Key Action covers all type of activities aiming at supporting and facilitating the modernisation of education and training systems.
Key Action 3 will support the following activities:
Knowledge in the fields of education, training and youth
Prospective, co-ordination, consultation, dissemination and exploitation initiatives
Support to European Policy Tools such as the European Qualification Framework (EQF), the European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET)
Co-operation and policy dialogue with stakeholders, third countries and international organisations
Policy and programme promotion.
This Key Action will mainly consist of projects run by the European Commission’s Executive Agency (EACEA). Around 4.2% of the Erasmus+ budget will be allocated to Key Action 3.
These programmes are not discussed here in detail as they are not the subject of the Feasibility Study.
6.2.3 Countries eligible
All Member States of the EU can participate in Erasmus+ along with Macedonia, Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. In addition, third countries neighbouring the EU from the Western Balkans, the Eastern Partnership, the Russian Federation, and South Mediterranean countries can participate in certain actions. The detailed guidelines should be checked when they are published for the full list of eligibility.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 129
6.2.4 Guidelines for funding under Erasmus+
Based on the evidence of the engagement of sport with the old programmes, and analysis of the new funding streams, the next section of the Final Report highlights the main opportunities for Sport and Sports organisations to participate in the new European Union funding opportunities offered under the draft guidelines for each funding stream included in Erasmus+.
Whilst the main focus of this study is Key Action 1, it is felt that there may be opportunities in the other Key Actions that may be worthy of further exploration as they could support the sport sector in tackling the obstacles that have held back its participation in the past.
It can be seen that, whilst the old familiar programme headings have disappeared, all the funded activities remain in the discreet funding streams. In the words of Doris Pack (EP Education Committee member and German MEP), “We kept everything that was good and improved it” (interview 06th November 201340).
These improvements have been designed to bring a closer link between policy and funding, remove some overlaps and lack of clarity between some of the programmes, to streamline the whole mobility programme and to address some of the concerns regarding “bureaucracy”. That has been expressed by the sport sector through the online questionnaire of the Study. However, it is clear that accountability will always be crucial and to this extent an element of checking and reporting is necessary, but the new programme aims to put the emphasis on quality outcomes rather than administrative processes. In promoting the new programme, officials of the EC have indicated that in future the emphasis will be on raising the quality of the learning experience supported under mobility actions. It has been indicated that the administration process may be reduced if applicants can prove they have achieved the required quality standards for each stream of the new programme and have the right systems in place to ensure quality learning opportunities are supported. At the same time, there is a significant increase of 40% in the budget of Erasmus+ (2014-2020) compared to the Lifelong Learning Programme (2007-2013) and hence more opportunities for sport can be the result, if it can organise itself to engage with the programme, and if it can deliver the quality required.
Each of the 3 Key Actions is reflected in the funding streams targeted at different parts of the Education and Youth Sector, as follows: a) HIGHER EDUCATION
Objectives: To increase the skills and employability of students thereby to contribute to the competitiveness of the European Union economy; To improve quality in teaching and learning; To implement the Higher Education Modernisation strategy in programme countries and raise capacity; To support the Bologna process and support policy dialogue.
40 Interview of Doris Pack on http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20131105STO23803/html/Doris-Pack-on- Erasmus-We-kept-everything-that-was-good-and-improved-it
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 130
Activities supported: ▶ To provide more and better opportunities to increase skills and competencies of HE students:
Student Mobility in Higher Education - eligible activities:
- Degree mobility - a study period at a partner Higher Education Institution (HEI) in another country. The study period must be an integral part of a student’s course of study at first degree/masters or PHD level (duration 3 to 12 months) or Joint Masters Courses offered by EU Universities.
- Credit mobility – including a traineeship (work placement) either during the study period or within one year of graduation. Wherever possible the traineeship should be part of the programme of study (duration 2 to 12 months).
- Traineeships – traineeships can be integrated into periods of study or organised separately as a specific learning mobility opportunity.
▶ To provide more and better opportunities for increasing quality in teaching and learning:
Staff Mobility in Higher Education for professional development – eligible activities:
- Teaching period abroad in a partner Higher Education Institution (HEI);
- Teaching assignment abroad to develop innovative teaching methods;
- Traineeship (work placement) for teaching and non-teaching staff, including a structured course, training events (not conferences), job shadowing/observation at another HEI or relevant organisation in another country;
- Staff invited from enterprises to increase relevance of teaching.
HE Strategic Partnerships (under key action 2):
- to enhance cooperation between HEIs and with key stakeholders (enterprises, research organisations, social partners, local/regional authorities, other organisations in Education, Training and youth sectors)
- sectoral or cross-sectoral co-operation between eligible organisations to implement innovative practices to improve quality teaching, training, learning and youth work, institutional modernisation and social innovation.
Knowledge Alliances bringing together HEIs and enterprises and develop and share the development of innovative practice and results orientated research with a view facilitating a flow of knowledge between HEIs and the world of business stimulating entrepreneurship and a in industry and in higher education.
Capacity building in Higher Education in neighbouring countries.
Eligible Organisations: any public or private Institution (HEI) offering degrees or other Tertiary level qualifications can register.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 131
Under the former Erasmus programme, about 2,000 participating Higher Education Institutes have been listed on the European Youth portal. In addition, not-for-profit organisations and other companies are eligible to be included in projects as key partners offering placements and training.
Going forward, it has been proposed that each HEI must hold a valid Erasmus Charter for Higher Education (ECHE) in order to be eligible to apply to any of the activities listed above. An agreement between Institutions must be in place before mobility can be supported, including a learning agreement for each student. Universities work through national consortia or with bi-lateral agreements with individual partners.
The award of an Erasmus Charter for Higher Education (ECHE) is a pre-requisite for all HEIs located in an eligible country and willing to participate in learning mobility of individuals and/or cooperation for innovation and good practices under the Erasmus+ Programme.
ASSESSMENT: OPPORTUNITY AND CHALLENGES FOR SPORT IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Sport is a significant area of study in Higher Education. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to quantify the uptake of learning mobility amongst students in sport related areas of study or students that take part in learning mobility for the sake of their sport as opposed to area of study. Evidence from the questionnaire would indicate that a significant amount of exchange activity takes place in sport related areas of study.
However, qualitative research and discussions have indicated that sport is not as strongly involved in HE mobility as it used to be. ENSSEE (the European Network of Sport Science, Education and Employment) became a vehicle to instigate many of the early Erasmus partnerships in sport. Over time, these Partnerships have become well-established and operate on a fairly stable one-to-one basis.
So, there is no reason why sport study should not be an active part of the HE strand of Erasmus+. However, some of the special groups focused on throughout this study face specific barriers in taking up learning mobility whilst in HE. In particular, non-professional elite athletes already face a difficult task in balancing their education, employment and sporting careers in the systems of their own country. To include a period of learning mobility in another country adds a further dimension and challenge to manage. This has been a subject of particular study and the development of the EC Dual Career guidelines points to solutions and actions to be adopted to support an athlete in this situation.
These Guidelines could go a step further and recommend the inclusion of mobility in the good practice guide, opening up a new range of opportunities for athletes in pursuing their dual careers. As individual countries and HEIs commit publicly to adopt the good practice in the Guidelines they should be encouraged to work together in a Network to meet the challenge of mobility. Under the Strategic partnerships programme (Key Action 2 of Erasmus+), encouraging the creation of this Network of HEIs committed to these guidelines AND actively engaged in Erasmus mobility should be considered. In this way, Athletes would be able to select a University for a mobility opportunity that could also offer support and access to the necessary training resources to support their continued
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 132
athletic training coupled with the flexible approach to academic timetabling that is required to give athletes time to train and compete.
The Strategic Partnership activities that are encouraged in the new programme also offer an opportunity to address another issue that sport struggles to address alone – the validation of non- formal and informal learning. There is a huge amount of voluntary work in sport which offers significant opportunities for personal development but much of this does not get properly recorded and recognised. In the Higher Education area of Erasmus+, students undertaking voluntary work should be able to gain recognition for it and again consideration could be given to engage the support of a network of HEIs experienced in sport to co-ordinate and lead activity in this area. This voluntary work offers real practical experience equal to many traineeships and needs to be recognised.
Another opportunity for sport organisations is to offer work placements and traineeships to Erasmus students from other countries. Sport Federations in particular could consider this as a way to bring fresh ideas and talent into their organisation. However, from the data collated through the study, there is no evidence of sports organisations actively linking with HEIs in this way and there is definitely scope in the new programmes to explore this potential. b) VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING (VET)
Objectives: to increase the employability and life skills of VET learners thereby contributing to the increased competitiveness of the European economy; to support increased European co-operation in Vocational Education and Training; to develop quality assurance (and trust between countries)
Activities:
Learners Mobility – to increase training opportunities abroad for VET Learners and to provide them with the skills to support their transition from education to the world of work eligible activities:
- A VET Traineeship – from 2 weeks to 12 months.
Learners can be hosted at a VET training provider (to pursue a course of study with) or a workplace. The activity is open to apprentices and upper secondary school students. Each mobility Activity is set within a quality framework previously agreed by the sending and host organisations, including a learning agreement which outlines the learning and the outcomes to be expected. Learning outcomes are formally recognised and validated at an institutional level.
Staff Mobility – to update or acquire knowledge of work practices and to refresh the pedagogical skills of VET professionals – including teaching and non-teaching staff.
- A teaching or training assignment in a partner VET provider. Staff from businesses can also be included to provide training at a VET provider in another country.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 133
- Staff training – to support the professional development of VET staff in the form of a work placement or job shadowing/observation in another VET organisation. Quality criteria demand that activities meet defined need of the organisations and the individuals and are seen as part of a strategic approach by the sending organisation.
- These Activities can be from 2 months to 12 months in duration.
VET Strategic Partnerships (under key action 2) - transnational co-operation between VET providers and businesses communities.
- As with the Higher Education strand, these partnerships are intended to promote exchange of good practice, guidance and co-operation in areas of innovation leading to high quality training and education e.g. new curricula developments, training schemes, teaching, materials etc. and to facilitate the recognition and certification of skills and competences;
- They should also support long-term partnership and bridge building between formal and informal learning and the world of work.
- Sector Skills Alliances are one form of partnership. They are intended to research and develop curricula to enhance the responsiveness of VET provision to meet the needs of the labour market.
Support for Policy reform under key action 3 to establish peer learning and thematic working groups, to increase the supply (and quality) of apprenticeships, and to support the use and development of EU tools (ECVET41, EQAVET42).
Eligible organisations: any public or private organisation active in the field of vocational education and training. Organisations can participate as Sending Organisations – in charge of selecting VET learners and staff and sending them to a partner abroad. It is these organisations that make the application for funding and take responsibility for organising the mobility experience. Or as Hosting Organisations – in charge of receiving foreign VET Learners or staff and offering them a programme of activities agreed with the Sending Organisation and enshrined in a learning agreement. Sometimes applications are co-ordinated through a National Consortium of partners acting together to send learners and staff abroad. A consortium co-ordinator will take responsibility for linking partners as sending and hosting organisations and ensuring the relationship between the two is successful.
ASSESSMENT: OPPORTUNITY AND CHALLENGES FOR SPORT IN VET
There has been some significant activity under the old Leonardo da Vinci programme in sport mainly under the heading of Initial Vocational Training (IVT). These learning mobility opportunities continue under the new Erasmus+ programme and will continue to be accessed by decentralised applications through National Agencies, which is something welcomed by those sporting organisations which have been involved in the past. However, there is considerable scope for increasing this level of
41 ECVET - The European Credit System for VET - http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/ecvet_en.htm 42 EQAVET - European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for VET - http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning- policy/eqavet_en.htm
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 134
activity and a latent demand and interest from the sector has been expressed in both the online questionnaire and the qualitative European research and national consultation through the sector.
A main challenge with a successful mobility application is to ensure that quality learning outcomes can be achieved during a placement period or a training programme abroad. Success in the sport sector has been achieved when the mobility is an integral part of a course of study and the activities undertaken can be assessed and recorded as part of the overall learning process. In other words, the mobility learning activity produces evidence that can be assessed and used to achieve the qualification in the sending country, for example a reflective diary, practical activity that is assessed or similar.
Evidence from the research during the feasibility study suggests that employers in sport are very under-represented in the Consortia and national partnership arrangements that flourish in many countries. These Consortia are generic in nature and involve employers and providers in a number of sectors. They are organised on a geographical basis (e.g. Chambers of Commerce).
These Consortia support the mobility process and match employers who are willing to send or receive individuals with training providers who are seeking placements as part of their programmes.
Apprenticeships are a main target for the expansion of vocational training opportunities in Erasmus+. However, they are not common in sport and are rarely available amongst the target groups included in this Study in particular. Apprenticeships provide a structured learning programme that combines practical experience on the job with off the job classroom learning. As such, work placements abroad can be clearly structured to contribute to the learning outcomes. This makes the incorporation of mobility easier as the expectations of the host and the responsibility of the sending organisation can be readily defined.
The Vocational Education and Training strand of Erasmus+ offers plenty of opportunities to enhance the skills and competences of those working in sport or seeking to work in sport. To participate successfully, sport needs to recognise the opportunities and the benefits and take the opportunity to review and update its approach to VET.
Examples of possible involvement of sports organisations:
As employers: Sporting organisations could participate by offering placements/traineeships to those individuals studying vocational programmes in sport.
- These placements could embrace opportunities for the staff in sports management and administration roles and coaches in the employment of the Sport Federation;
- The development of apprenticeship programmes and a more integrated framework of qualifications in sport should be explored on a European basis;
- Sports organisations should engage with the Regional and local Consortia that support organisations from a range of Sectors to actively participate in mobility partnerships.
As training providers: many sport Federations co-ordinate vocational training and provide qualifications and training for those entering their sport. The opportunity exists to build periods of learning in another country into their programmes of study and to enter reciprocal arrangements
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 135
with Federations in other countries. The development of tools to record progress and achievement during periods of mobility would ensure learning outcomes can be recorded during the mobility. c) SCHOOL EDUCATION
Objectives: To develop school staff competences (language, ICT etc.); To reduce early school leaving; To provide professional development opportunities.
Activities:
Staff Mobility - learning mobility for pre-school and school staff (under key action 1): - Participation in structured courses and training events abroad; - Job shadowing and observation period abroad in a partner school or other relevant organisation in the field of school education; - Teaching assignments; - Participation is open to teaching and non-teaching staff.
Strategic Partnerships (under key action 2) – for co-operation between schools, local/regional authorities and other sectors to: - develop, transfer and implement innovative practices; - cross-sectoral cooperation between schools and other organisations leading to curriculum development, reinforcement of basic skills, combating violence in schools; - local consortia to improve the educational offer to young people; - exchanges of groups of pupils on study/training periods aimed at reinforcing linguistic skills and inter-cultural awareness.
E-Twinning (under key action 2) – on-line community offering services to teachers, pupils and school leaders, teacher and student educators.
Peer learning between high level policy makers, practitioners, participating organisations, researchers and stakeholder groups (under key action 3)
Development of national policies and European dialogue through transnational experimentation with innovative policy measures and their transfer to other systems (under key action 3).
Activities can last from 2 days to 2 months excluding travel time. A Sending School applies to the National Agency for a grant for a project lasting up to 2 years.
The Sending School has the responsibility to ensure the learning outcomes from the mobility are properly recognised.
Tools such as Europass43 can be used for this.
43 See http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/en/home
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 136
ASSESSMENT – THE OPPORTUNITY AND CHALLENGES FOR SPORT IN SCHOOL EDUCATION
Physical Education and sport are well-established aspects of the curriculum that have come back into focus in recent years with the increasing concerns about childhood obesity and a more inactive generation of young people. The opportunity exists for interaction between physical education and school sport staff to exchange ideas and good practice and for staff development and training placements to observe successful practice in other countries.
The first step is for a school to establish a partnership with a school in another country and then for the sport and Physical Education departments in those schools to be integrated as part of the activities in a programme of joint activity between the schools.
Pupils can participate within exchanges with other schools in the partnership and sport can be featured in these exchanges IF the broader objectives of linguistic development and inter-cultural exchange are incorporated. Inter-school competition in sport is not sufficient in itself to justify an EU grant.
Sport is also developing a range of new delivery models in countries often utilising specialist coaches and even specialist providers outside the core school teaching staff. The objective of these is to expand the range of activities available to young people and to take the pressure off curriculum time. These developments could be targeted as innovative practice and good practice explored as part of strategic partnership development under this programme.
Aspiring athletes and their coaches involved in schools could benefit in particular by experiencing conditions and coaching and training techniques in other countries. Indeed in some sports these conditions may not be found in their own country.
Also, pupils could receive their first experience of a sport that may not be available in their own school or country and indeed the opportunity to link with some traditional sports that may be unique in one or two countries only could provide for an important cultural exchange activity as well as the sporting experience itself. For example, sport is part of the culture of many countries in an historic way. The EC has prioritised support for preserving and growing these traditional sports in the new Sport Chapter and schools may provide an ideal vehicle to link these policy initiatives. d) ADULT EDUCATION
Objectives: To modernise and improve adult education through co-operation with other sectors; To support the validation of non-formal and informal education; To improve guidance systems; To improve quality assurance.
Activities:
Staff Mobility (under key action 1) – to develop and broaden knowledge, skills and competences of staff working in adult education:
- Participation in structured courses and training events abroad (less than 2 months);
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 137
- Job shadowing/observation periods in an adult education or other relevant sector;
- Teaching assignments (between 2 and 12 months).
Strategic Partnerships (under key action 2) – to exchange experiences and best practice:
- To develop, test and validate new curricula with a focus on basic skills (literacy, numeracy and ICT);
- To improve accessibility of learning opportunities;
- Developing strategic co-operation between providers and regional/local authorities.
- These partnerships provide the vehicle for organising mobility activities for adult learners – such as blended learning combining physical and virtual mobility
ASSESSMENT – OPPORTUNITY AND CHALLENGES FOR SPORT IN ADULT EDUCATION
Adult Education is an important resource for the sport and recreation. It provides many opportunities for older adults to participate in active leisure pursuits in a social environment amongst their like-minded peers.
Active ageing is a priority theme under the EC programmes to support health enhancing physical activity. The role of volunteers is particularly important in the success of these participation programmes. This strand of Erasmus+ offers the opportunity for staff and volunteers to learn from best practice in other countries and exchange ideas.
The interpretation of “adult education” is broad and allows access for anyone after leaving school. e) YOUTH
Objectives: To improve the key competencies and skills of young people, particularly those with fewer opportunities; Promoting participation in democratic life, the labour market, active citizenship, inter- cultural dialogue and social inclusion; To improve quality in youth work; To complement local policy reform and the recognition of non-formal and informal learning; To enhance the international dimension of youth activities.
Activities:
Mobility of Young people (under key action 1):
- Youth Exchanges allowing groups of young people from different countries to meet together for 5 to 21 days to carry out an activity programme designed and prepared by them before the exchange. Exchanges are designed to allow young people to develop skills, competencies and attitudes, cultural awareness, and experience new lifestyles, mainly through peer led and informal learning and development opportunities. They often include debates, role-plays, outdoor activities, workshops etc.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 138
- European Voluntary Service : young people aged 17-30 to commit to unpaid and full- time voluntary service for up to 12 months, contributing to the work of youth organisations such as - personal and socio-educational development, social care, inclusion, the environment, culture and creativity etc. Groups can consist of between 1 and 30 individuals.
Mobility of Youth Workers (under key action 1):
- This activity supports the professional development of youth workers through their participation in seminars, training courses, study visits etc.;
- Work placement, shadowing or observation period in a youth organisation in another country.
Organisations involved in youth activities should sign an internal agreement between themselves. They should ensure learning outcomes can be recognised utilising tools such as the Youth Pass. Inclusion of the disadvantaged and young people with a disability is a priority for funding.
Strategic Partnerships (under key action 2): strengthening co-operation and exchange between organisations and with and between regional authorities responsible for youth work.
- Key activities are to develop, test and implement innovative practice and to enhance the validation of non-formal and informal learning competences;
- To foster exchange with countries outside Europe and with organisations in the education and business worlds;
- To raise the capacity of youth councils, platforms etc. in other countries;
- To implement exchanges with third countries;
- To facilitate the engagement of young people with policy makers.
ASSESSMENT – OPPORTUNITY AND CHALLENGES FOR SPORT IN YOUTH
The Youth programme offers the opportunity to highlight the social impact of sport and he contribution it makes to the personal and social development of people. There are many grassroots organisations that successfully combine sport and youth and a growing number that include mobility in their programmes.
The key challenge for sport in successfully engaging with the youth programme, is to recognise that the broader skill and cultural benefits of the exchange are the rationale for the project. Merely to play sport in another country is not sufficient without the interaction and cultural exchange that is a key part of the programme. The programme offers a real opportunity to showcase the social benefits of sport and its potential in engaging young people, tacking disadvantage and exclusion. Another specific feature of sport is the vast army of volunteers that are essential to grassroots sport. A best practice Network is needed to help and support more youth organisations to successfully tackle the application process.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 139
6.2.5 The Sport Chapter
The intended focus of the Sport chapter funded under the new Erasmus+ is built around the following priorities and activities.
Objectives:
To tackle cross-border threats to the integrity of sport (doping, match-fixing, violence, intolerance and discrimination);
To promote and support good governance in sport and the dual careers of athletes;
To promote voluntary activities, social inclusion and equal opportunities together with the awareness of the importance of Health-enhancing Physical Activity and equal access to sport for all.
There will be support for collaborative partnerships, non-profit European sports events relating to HEPA and social inclusion, strengthening the evidence base for policy making, supporting dialogue with relevant European stakeholders.
It is not the purpose of this Feasibility Study to examine the detailed proposals for the sport Chapter itself. However, a key objective of the whole Erasmus+ programme is to encourage greater synergy between EU policy priorities. Learning mobility and sport are two such policy priorities, but at present there is no specific reference to learning mobility in the Sport Chapter.
The integration and encouragement of learning mobility as part of the policy linked activities supported by the Sport Chapter would help encourage a culture of learning mobility in sport.
In seeking proposals aimed at moving forward the policy priorities identified in the Sport Chapter, consideration should be given to highlighting mobility as a key action through which to disseminate and spread good practice.
Provision for exchanges of individuals, shadowing, and formal training linked to the key policy areas (such as good governance or anti-doping for example) which are to supported under the Chapter, could be an effective way of sharing good practice particularly among staff of Federations and volunteers in leadership positions in those Federations, which are focus groups within this Study. It is therefore proposed that learning mobility should be promoted as a key tool to be used in transnational EU funded projects linked to the priority programmes agreed under the Sport Chapter. For example, for a sport administrator to spend time in another Sport Federation in another country to experience their approach to governance, could provide an excellent learning opportunity that could attract mobility funding and could also be a very effective way of disseminating good practice. The funding provided for not for profit events through the Sport Chapter and the European Week of Sport should be highlighted as they could provide the opportunity for the creation of volunteering exchanges that could be supported under the new Erasmus+ programme.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 140
Sport Federations could be encouraged to seek volunteers from another country with support from the programme.
6.2.6 Summary
Creating the Conditions for successful Learning Mobility in Sport
The components are there for increasing the uptake of Learning Mobility in the Sport Sector. The consultation has revealed a good level of latent demand, held back by a lack of awareness of the opportunities that exist, concern about the complexity of the application process for, and administration of funded activity and a lack of resources in sports organisations to deal with both.
There is evidence from the old LLP that sport can successfully run mobility projects and these activities can all find a place in the new funding streams within Erasmus+.
So the opportunity exists in the new Erasmus+ programme to meet this demand - but how ready is sport?
What is required to unlock this interest in mobility and to increase the engagement of sport with quality learning mobility within the conditions of the new Erasmus+ programme?
Learning Mobility is a partnership. A partnership between a Learner, their home organisation (university, training provider or employer) which takes the responsibility for organising the learning partnership and for sending the learner on the learning experience, and a Host organisation (university, training provider or employer) that actually provides the opportunity for the learning to take place. This partnership needs to be structured and roles and relationships within the Partnership need to be clearly laid out in an agreement which is designed both to ensure the Learner has a good experience and also that the funding rules can be met. The right conditions need to be created in the Sport Sector to allow these Partnerships to develop because so far Sport has not engaged to the same degree as other sectors.
What might the Learning Experience consist of?
Learning Mobility revolves around the movement of an individual from one qualifying organisation to another qualifying organisation in another participating country for an agreed period of time and to achieve defined learning outcomes through:
- A placement;
- A traineeship;
- An apprenticeship;
- A formal learning programme of study or course;
- An informal learning experience like job-shadowing or voluntary activity;
- Other
Depending on the funding stream people can move from one organisation to another – for example, from university or VET training provider to an employer or to another education institute OR from an employer to another employer or training provider.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 141
There are many combinations depending on the funding stream which has been outlined in the early sections of this chapter.
But, Sport has not engaged to a sufficient extent thus far, so in order to create more mobility opportunities, more Sending Organisations and more Host Organisations in the Sport Sector need to be encouraged.
Sending Organisations – potential sending organisations include Universities, VET Providers and Federations and other employers. Indeed any organisation in the Sector willing to offer opportunities to its employees and volunteers to experience a period of learning or personal development abroad. Potential Sending Organisations in the Sector need to be introduced to the opportunities that exist, be convinced of the benefits to them and their staff/volunteers/students and to understand the responsibilities of a Sending Organisation.
Sending Organisations make the application for funding under the Erasmus+ programme, normally to the National Agency. They also draw down the funding and are responsible for ensuring the successful outcome of the activity. They are responsible for preparing the learner including ensuring they have the necessary language skills to successfully complete their learning time in another country. The learning/activity programme will be developed in consultation with a Host Organisation and outlined in a learning agreement. During the mobility period a mentor will be available to the learner who will maintain contact between the Sender and Host Organisations.
Host Organisations - for every Sending Organisation there needs to be a Host Organisation to receive the learner and to take responsibility for delivering the learning activity (placement, study, work experience, shadowing, volunteering etc.). Any funding for costs associated with the learning plus the learner’s travel and subsistence are claimed from the Sending Organisation and are covered by their application to their National Agency. The rates are standard and applicable for the Host country costs.
Most Member States now have active networks of organisations who take a lead role in mobility. Generic lead organisations – sometimes colleges or training providers, sometimes employer associations, sometimes business support organisations like Chambers of Commerce or even consultancies – have emerged to provide a service of Co-ordination. They provide a resource to help match employers with training providers and learners. They grow and support the market for mobility. In many cases they submit applications on behalf of a consortium of organisations in one country and fund their role by managing the application and delivery on behalf of the Sending Organisations.
Co-ordinators network together at a European level and this assists with matching supply and demand between countries. One such network is called Europemobility44. It is an open consortium of organisations from Vocational, Higher and Informal/Non-Formal learning, established with the aim of supporting and growing the market for Learning Mobility.
44 Europemobility - Mission: committed to cooperate to raise the quality and quantity of work placement and learning mobility opportunities across Europe - http://www.europemobility.tv/
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 142
The Sport Sector needs to understand that it is entering a competitive situation. There are established arrangements in many countries with experience of successful activity in mobility. Even these organisations are going to be challenged by the new quality requirements that are being sought in Erasmus+.
The Higher Education Charter (from Erasmus) and the VET Accreditation scheme emerging from Leonardo IVT are, it is understood, to become the expectation and even a pre-requisite for a successful application. As a result, working through a trusted network of quality assured organisations will enable the EC to relax some of the checks and processes that have been as such an administrative burden on the old LLP programmes.
The challenge for sport organisations is not just to enter a new world but to enter with the ability to operate at a high level of quality.
6.3 THE NEW EUROPE FOR CITIZENS PROGRAMME 2014-2020
6.3.1 Overview
At the time of writing, the programme “Europe for Citizens” for the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020 was still subject to its final adoption by the European parliament of the Council Regulation, a positive opinion or lack of objection by the committee established in the Regulation establishing the Programme and the availability of the appropriations provided for in the draft budget for 2014 upon adoption of the budget 2014.
However, a call for proposals was published on 11 November 2013 for structural support for European public policy research organisations and civil society organisation at European level in which those elements are recalled. This echoes the adoption of the 2014 Work Programme by the European Commission on 31 October 2013.
Although, as for the period 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013 the main objective of the programme remains to contribute to the understanding about the European Union and to promote civic participation, the general objective is narrowed and consist in strengthening remembrance and enhance capacity for civic participation at Union level.
Few figures from the final report of the study measuring the impact of the Europe for Citizens programme for the period 2007-2013 and dated May 2013 may be mentioned to demonstrate that objectives from the last period appear to be reached. Indeed, almost 80% of the people having taken part in the Programme (and responded to the study) feel more European, while almost 90% feel more aware of a shared European culture, identity or heritage. A Budget of €229 million will be necessary to cover the period 2014-2020.
In order to implement such principles, the programme will be organised under 2 strands, which will be completed by horizontal actions. The attention shall be drawn to the fact that both strands are defined by the possible projects and initiatives and not by the type of civic organisation or actors that can apply. Action grants and Operating grants will be available under both Strands.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 143
Concerning the sport sector, if funding opportunities may appear more obvious under Strand 2, sports organisations remain eligible until stated otherwise by the applicable documents and, under the current situation, may also be eligible under Strand 1.
6.3.2 Main funded strands and actions STRAND 1: REMEMBRANCE AND EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP According to the Council Regulation, this strand aims at supporting activities that invite to reflection on common values in the broadest sense.
However, if the focus will once again be put on initiatives relating to totalitarian regimes in Europe’s modern history (especially Nazism and Stalinism), other reference points in recent European history may be covered by the strand.
For the year 2014, the following historical moments will be commemorated and will therefore be regarded as priorities:
100th anniversary of the beginning of World War I;
25th anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall;
10 years of enlargement of the European Union to Central and Eastern Europe.
Key information:
- Type of organisations: public local/regional authorities or non-profit organisations, including civil society organisations, survivors’ associations, and cultural, youth, educational and research organisations, associations of twinned towns.
- Indicative Budget 2014: €4.255.000
- Maximum grant amount: €100.000
- Maximum percentage of co-funding: 70%
- Maximum duration: 18 months per project
ASSESSMENT: OPPORTUNITY AND CHALLENGES FOR SPORT
The historical dimension of Sport is not questionable and could perfectly be used to apply for a project fitting in the present Strand with a focus on Sport. Indeed, the capacity of Sport to raise passion and emotion, together with its wide media coverage led both Nazism and Stalinism regimes to use Sport as a propaganda tool and a political lever.
While referring to the wording of the Commission implementing decision, projects under the present Strand encouraging tolerance, mutual understanding, intercultural dialogue and reconciliation as a means of moving beyond the past and building the future is directly applicable to Sport and its values.
However, attention must be drawn to the fact that it will certainly be easier for the sport sector to apply for Action grants than for Operating grants as, despite the lack of quantitative elements, bodies from the sector focusing on European remembrance through Sport may not be numerous.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 144
Of course, these proposals are not closely linked with learning mobility as defined in this Study, but could be linked to a wider European learning experience.
STRAND 2. DEMOCRATIC ENGAGEMENT AND CIVIC PARTICIPATION
“Civic participation” must be understood as covering civic participation in the broadest sense, with particular focus on structuring methods for long-term sustainability and with a preference for projects with a clear link to European political agenda.
Projects and initiatives that develop opportunities for solidarity, societal engagement and volunteering at European level will also be covered and a focus on Women’s involvement in political and economic decision-making is also a target.
An indicative budget 2014 of €15.445.000 is planned for this Strand.
For 2014, the following type of activities will be supported though action grants:
Town Twinning:
It aims at supporting projects bringing together a wide range of citizens from twinned towns to debate on concrete issues on the European political agenda.
Key information: - Type of organisations: towns/municipalities or their twinning committees or other non- profit organisations representing local authorities; - Number of organisations involved: municipalities from at least 2 eligible countries which at least one is an EU Member State. - Maximum grant amount: €25.000 - Maximum percentage of co-funding: 50% - Maximum duration: 24 months per project
Network of Towns
Municipalities/regions and associations working together on a common theme in a long-term perspective are invited to develop networks of towns and are expected to integrate a wide range of activities.
Key information:
- Type of organisations: towns/municipalities or their twinning committees or networks, other levels of local/regional authorities, federations/associations of local authorities and non-profit organisations representing local authorities; the other organisation involved in the project can also be non-profit Civil Society Organisations.
- Number of organisations involved: municipalities from at least 4 eligible countries which at least one is an EU Member State.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 145
- Maximum grant amount: €150.000
- Maximum percentage of co-funding: 70%
- Maximum duration: 18 months per project
Civil Society Projects
It aims at supporting projects promoted by transnational partnerships and networks directly involving citizens.
ASSESSMENT: OPPORTUNITY AND CHALLENGES FOR SPORT
Although the priorities for 2014 must concern the elections to the European Parliament and citizens’ participation in the democratic life of the EU, the field of Sport should take the advantage of its facility to bring people together to be, for example, partner in projects. Furthermore, as mentioned in the priorities for 2014, it will be the first election since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty.
Sport having been for the first time integrated in an EU Treaty through the latter, the chance should be taken to enhance and promote Sport as a cross-disciplinary sector. In addition, the pyramidal structure of Sport is an advantage as Sport policies and organisations are present and active both within public authorities’ competences and non-governmental organisation.
Besides, as demonstrated in the report, the sport sector already possessed a network which could be used by the different stakeholders to apply.
Still for 2014, the following type of organisations will be supported through operating grants:
European public policy research organisations (think tanks);
Civil Society Organisations working at European level;
Platforms of pan-European organisations.
Contrary to organisation supported through operating grants in Strand 1, the above mentioned organisations meet the particular organisation of the sport sector. For example, the category “Civil Society Organisations working at European level” is further specified and concern umbrella organisations, networks and other civil society organisations.
Consequently, sport sector organisations were already supported in the past through the present operating grants and are eligible in the future.
HORIZONTAL ACTION: VALORISATION
Horizontal actions for analysis, dissemination and exploitation of project results will complement the two main strands. Consequently, this action applies to the Programme overall and thereby to both Strand 1 and 2.
The action will therefore support initiatives that boost transferability of results, provide better return on investment and increase learning from experience.
It also includes the development of support measures to exchange best practices, to pool experiences and to develop new skills.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 146
An indicative budget 2014 of €1.350.000 is planned for this Horizontal Action Valorisation.
ACTIONS
Regardless to the actions describe above and laid down in the Commission implementing decisions, to implement and achieve the objectives of the Programme, the following actions will be funded for the period 2014-2020 according to the Council Regulation:
Citizens’ meetings, town twinning;
Creation and operations of transnational partnerships and networks;
Support for organisations of a general European interest;
Community building and debates on citizenship issues based on the use of ICT and/or social media;
Union level events;
Debates/studies and interventions on defining moments in European history, in particular to keep the memory alive of the crimes committed under Nazism and Stalinism;
Reflection/debates on common values;
Initiatives to raise awareness of the EU institutions and their functioning;
Actions that exploit and further valorise the results of the supported initiatives;
Studies on issues related to citizenship and civic participation;
Support of programme information/advice structure in the Member States.
In comparison to the last Decision No 1904/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council dated 12 December 2006 establishing the Programme for the period 2007 to 2013, the Council Regulation available at the time of writing does not shape the same structure for the Programme. Indeed, not only the wording of the actions has changed, the overall shape has been transformed and the place for remembrance seems enlarged.
However, while referring to the European Commission implementing decision of 31 October 2013 concerning the adoption of the 2014 work programme and the financing implementation of the Europe for Citizens programme (as further detailed above) define more clearly the structure of the future programme.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 147
CHAPTER 7 – COMPLETING THE CONSULTATION PROCESS - WORKSHOP
7.1 WORK COMPLETED
In order to complete the consultative phase of the feasibility study, a specific workshop, gathering selected EU stakeholders from the sport sector was organised on 1 October 2013 in Vilnius (Lithuania) following the EU Sport Forum 201345.
In preparation for the workshop, the consortium made a full analysis of the quantitative data, views and opinions received through desk research, online questionnaire and national consultations. A logic chain was applied whereby the most significant findings were summarised and from this, the consortium produced a corresponding set of conclusions to reflect the sector’s view of learning mobility EU funded programmes in sport.
A first attempt at recommendations to address the findings and conclusions was subsequently completed. This led to the development of a working paper outlining main findings, conclusions and draft recommendations. This paper (Annex 16) was sent to all workshop participants in advance of the meeting to allow them to consider the major issues and questions to be addressed in Vilnius.
The workshop was run in an open and consultative manner to ensure maximum participation of attendees. This was achieved through a pre-prepared PowerPoint presentation which included a range of questions that were addressed at the workshop (see Annex 16). The consortium made every effort to ensure the event was able to respond to the major findings and conclusions of the study and to assist in shaping the final recommendations regarding future sport mobility measures for the EU.
The forum proved to be very helpful for the consortium and the event was very much a success. A full report of the forum was produced and sent to all participants (see Annex 17).
7.2 PARTICIPANTS TO THE WORKSHOP
European Network Organisations EAS (The Dual Career Network), EASE (European Association of Sport Employers), EBA (European Boxing Association), ECC (European Coaching Council), EHF (European Handball Federation), EHF (European Hockey Federation), ESN (Erasmus Student Network), EU ATHLETES & FIFpro division Europe, EUSA (European University Sports Association), European Commision (Sport Unit), IOC (International Olympic Committee Athletes’ Commission), IPC (International Paralympic Committee), ISCA (International Sport and Culture Association), LEN (European Aquatics), UEFA (Union of European Football Associations), Uni-Europa Sport, Burson-Marsteller Brussels
Lithuanian delegation LUSF (Lithuanian Union of Sport Federations), LSF (Lithuanian Swimming Federation), LHF (Lithuanian Handball Federation), Department of Physical Education and Sports under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (Ministry of Sport)
45 EU Sport Forum 2013 - http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/20131018-eusportforum2013_en.htm
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 148
Representatives of the consortium EOSE (European Observatoire of Sport and Employment), S&C (Sport and Citizenship), UCL (Université Catholique de Louvain)
7.3 DISCUSSION ON THE MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Following a vote by show of hands, participants agreed with the main conclusions described within the working paper.
Several attendees were eager to learn more about best practices and past experiences of learning mobility from within sport, besides the two that were presented already (UK and Lithuania). An open discussion took place opening the floor to the panel members to share their experiences and express their thoughts on the success of mobility programmes.
ISCA underlined that the high ratio of answers the Consortium got to the online survey is really great news for the sport sector, which is suffering from a constant lack of relevant data.
The European handball Federation underlined that they started their own academy, providing educational services for various target groups (delegates or referees for example) from across Europe; this was rightly deemed as learning mobility.
The European Hockey Federation added that they have their own system with courses, seminars, etc for 16-18 years old athletes, based on mentoring, to provide international experience and allow them to become true EU citizens.
Regarding the barriers linked to the size of some sports organisations, EU Athletes and FIFPro division Europe highlighted that the definition of a sport organisation encompasses many different realities.
It is important to keep in mind that for some small sport organisations, it is difficult to send their staff away on mobility opportunities as there is no possibility to replace them.
From the discussion, the following points were raised:
Professional and Grassroots sport are willing to share good practices of past experiences.
The use of the new Sport Chapter will need to be linked to key EU policies such as Good Governance, Dual Careers or Anti-Doping.
7.4 STARTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS
The consortium invited the workshop to assist in the development of recommendations. The following questions were posed:
What specific schemes would we recommend for each category? (Coaches, non-professional athletes, volunteers, staff in non-profit sport organisations).
What measures could be included in the Sport Chapter to support these actions?
What are the key actions that should be considered to raise awareness and support sport to access mobility? In order to give focus to the discussion, the European Commission recalled the specificity of
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 149
learning mobility EU funded programmes through institutes, federations etc. and that in the Sport Chapter of Erasmus+, mobility of individuals will not be funded directly.
Sport organisations willing to make use of learning mobility should therefore work in the framework of the instruments provided within the Erasmus+ programme, especially under Key Action 1 (Learning Mobility of individuals) but also potentially developing transnational projects complying with the Sport Chapter objectives (fight against doping match fixing and violence; support to good governance in sport; development of dual careers; promotion of voluntary activities and Health Enhancing Physical Activity). Furthermore, the European Commission re-stated projects should also be aligned with the objectives of the EU policy in the field such as EU physical Activity Guidelines and EU Guidelines on Dual Careers of Athletes.
This idea was reinforced by ISCA’s comment who stated that objectives of learning mobility actions should be a mix of individual and organisational development.
The European Commission then took the example of coaches to express the view that learning mobility opportunities could be part of a project which aims to develop social inclusion through sport (a clear objectives of EU policy in the field) and this could be developed through the “transnational networks” strands.
The European Coaching Council pointed out that for many Eastern European entities, language can be an important obstacle to mobility. Regarding the language barrier, a system of clinics organised in favour of European handball referees and delegates to improve their English skills was presented by the European Handball Federation. Such a system could therefore potentially be implemented for athletes, coaches, volunteers and staff. In the handball project, the European Federation took the lead, but this could also be implemented and funded by other stakeholders.
From a dual-career perspective, the IOC Athletes’ Commission highlighted that learning mobility opportunities should deliver a mix learning outcomes from an academic and a sporting point of view. They also pointed out that when dealing with coaches, the potential objectives of learning mobility projects should be the exchange of good practice.
Regarding the issue of the lack of awareness of EU mobility programmes and opportunities for the sport sector, it was proposed by participants that the Sport Chapter should offer a specific fund for a European Network coordinator whose role should be to reach all levels of the sector, disseminate the knowledge and create fruitful and relevant synergies between organisations. ‘EuSportlink’ was cited as a good example from Belgium. It is a governmental funded organisation whose role is to share its knowledge and create a meaningful network.
Regarding the specific case of athletes, European Aquatics suggested that sport organisations (mainly European Federations) should also engage into a mapping exercise to make sure athletes are aware of learning mobility opportunities.
ISCA stated that there will be different barriers according to each strands and objectives of the Erasmus+ programme. He suggested it is difficult to speak about a programme before knowing the actual content of it? Taking into account that to make the most of learning mobility opportunities, funded projects should include mobility as a tool to help organisations to raise their profile and
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 150
address some of the sport’s major threats (corruption, bad governance). ISCA went on to express doubts about the interest of EU funding for coaches and athletes in the field of learning mobility (especially if performance oriented).
Regarding administrative barriers, the main recommendation from the members focussed on making administrative proceedings as simple as possible to enable organisations of every size to apply.
In addition, workshop attendees were in favour of simplifying the method for submitting a project to the European Commission: before working on a detailed written application, project applicants could be given the opportunity to write a short “concept paper” (for example 3-5 pages). Once this concept paper is accepted by the competent EC office responsible for the call, the project applicant would detail their application in full. Indeed as stated by IPC, developing an answer requires a lot of energy and you may lose lots of credentials, energy and willingness to go further should the application be unsuccessful.
Regarding the certification and recognition of mobility experiences, members underlined that it is of importance to clarify the indicators to ensure a certification/acknowledgement to prove what is learnt from a mobility programme in the field of sport. It must be a « win-win » situation between the person, the sending organisation and the hosting organisation. As suggested by the European Student Network this could be ensured through the signature of written bilateral agreements between universities and sport organisations (especially through the Key Action 1 of Erasmus+). In any case, all projects must be deemed eligible in terms of both their outcomes and the quality of experiences for learners.
7.5 LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE WORKSHOP
The workshop proved to be very valuable in allowing the Consortium to conclude the consultative phase of the study and move towards the development of the recommendations for future learning mobility measures.
The workshop allowed for the main conclusions that had been derived from the consultation to date to be tested and discussed with key organisations from across the sector. The overriding message was that the conclusions were agreed upon by those in attendance.
The level of interest and engagement from participants confirmed the desire from sport to capitalise on future learning mobility opportunities. Some attendees had previous experience in EU funded programmes whereas others who were not aware of the opportunities offered through the EU had initiated independent learning mobility programmes for their sport based on perceived needs and benefits of such activity.
The workshop also provided the opportunity to brainstorm new ideas and approaches that could expand mobility in sport. This dialogue illustrated that the numerous networks, bodies and federations in the sector are well connected and able to work together and that this collaboration could be extended to support learning mobility. This confirmed that sport should be ideally placed to benefit from future opportunities funded under the new Erasmus+ if some of the main barriers identified can be addressed.
The full version of the report of the workshop is attached as annex 17 of this report.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 151
CHAPTER 8 – CONCLUSIONS
8.1 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
This Study identifies a number of seemingly contradictory indicators. On one hand there is clearly a strong demand for learning mobility. Sport recognises the benefit for the individual, for their organisation and for sport as a whole that would arise from an increase in learning mobility through the exchange of people, ideas and good practice. Yet on the other hand, sport has only participated at a low level in the programmes designed to make learning mobility a reality.
To a great extent therefore, this demand has lain dormant partly because awareness levels of the opportunities offered by the EU funded programmes has been low and partly because sport has lacked the organisation and capacity to engage.
However, where the sport sector has ventured into the programmes there is strong evidence from many organisations and countries that it has successfully engaged with, and benefitted from, the EU mobility funding programmes under the LLP. A chart summarising these opportunities and the extent to which the sport sector has engaged with them is included as annex 18.
The Erasmus+ programme preserves these successful categories of funding that sport has enjoyed and streamlines the presentation and processes linked to them. The challenge ahead is how can sport benefit more from the new programme and unlock the benefits its sees in learning mobility.
8.1.1 Evidence of Demand
From the high number of responses to the online questionnaire, the national interviews and roundtables, it is clear that the sport sector is convinced of the need for European Union funded learning mobility opportunities to be available in the future and want to capitalise on this.
It is important to note that the opportunities that have been available and that the sector has placed a value upon have both an academic and vocational nature. Students are just one category of individuals that have been able to participate in learning mobility programmes; staff, volunteers, trainers and others have indeed had the opportunity to develop their skills through learning mobility activities to the benefit of both themselves and their respective organisations.
There is strong evidence that sport organisations appreciate the benefits that would flow to sport from an enhanced level of mobility and exchange. Sport is organised around a mass of networks that are national, international and European. For example, each sport has its own International, European and National Federation and there are National Olympic Committees and Non- Government Organisations at a national level that are also linked at a European and international level. There is strong interaction between these organisations and their members. The basis for co- operation and collaboration in the field of learning is there; it needs to be unlocked. At present, learning mobility is not amongst the priorities of these Networks.
Where sport has participated, European Union funded programmes have proved to be very successful with high levels of satisfaction and recognised added value from those involved. Unfortunately, however, there is a real lack of systematic quantitative data from previous sport learning mobility activities funded at the European Commission and National Agency level. This
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 152
Feasibility Study has therefore needed to rely on case studies and good practice guides for its evidence.
Demand for learning mobility in the sector also extends to travel outside of Europe. As confirmed by respondents of the questionnaire, opportunities to travel beyond the boundaries of the EU would aid the sport sector as it seeks specific expertise from selected countries.
8.1.2 Barriers to take up
Sport has had the opportunity to capitalise from a range of learning mobility opportunities through the current European Union funded programmes, yet there has been a low level of participation.
The first issue is that there is a low level of awareness across the sport sector about the learning mobility opportunities that have existed through European Union funded programmes under the Lifelong Learning programme 2006-13.
In many cases, organisations such as the Sport Federations and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) that are essential to activating learning mobility programmes, have been unaware of the programmes and opportunities themselves. Not surprisingly, individuals in sport have likewise shown a low level of awareness of the opportunities, as they have not been presented to them by the organisations who are their employers or their Federations. Consequently there has not been much upward pressure from individuals that would have demonstrated a demand and put pressure on organisations to offer such opportunities.
This lack of awareness goes deeper than merely a lack of “awareness of the programme”. There is a significant and recognised lack of awareness within the sport sector of how and where mobility could be developed – who might partners be and where good learning mobility opportunities might be developed.
Where organisations have been aware of opportunities, they have been deterred by the perceived resource requirement (human, time and financial) to prepare an application, and they have decided they lack the resources to develop the links and programmes necessary to support a strong application, and then to run the programme if successful. It should be noted that there might be fewer complexities with regard to previous Erasmus applications as Higher Education Institutions often have systems as well as partnerships in place that should greatly assist both engagement, application and completion of learning mobility programmes.
There has been a recognised complexity in the EU funded programmes. There has been a large number of learning mobility opportunities available through the existing European Union funded programmes which have been difficult to differentiate and are also very similar in terms of criteria of eligibility, objectives and priorities.
Moreover, information on these opportunities has not been centralised, and has been perceived to be complicated to find by potential individuals and organisations. Programmes have not been targeted at sport and sport organisations, and deep research has been needed before being able to identify the right programmes to bid for to meet the need.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 153
A number of organisations have been deterred from applying because it has proved to be difficult to establish the fruitful partnerships in the sport sector that are needed for learning mobility European Union funded programmes to succeed (e.g. find hosting or/and sending organisations).
Respondents have reported that processes for application and the administrative burdens for the operation and management of European Union funded learning mobility programmes have been perceived to be too complicated, time consuming and burdensome; particularly for not for profit organisations with limited resources.
It is this perceived lack of resources, expertise and knowledge within sport sector organisations that has been cited as the main barrier to participation through the mapping exercise of the Feasibility Study. They have found it hard to commit any resource to the development of an application with no guaranteed success of a positive outcome.
Sport has not generally engaged with the mainstream generic structures and networks that have emerged across Europe to bring together and offer mutual support to employers and training providers seeking to engage with mobility programmes. A Network of National Co-ordinating organisations (Europemobility46) has developed, particularly alongside Leonardo IVT (Initial Vocational Training) and VETPRO (Vocational Education and Training Professionals) and in apprenticeships.
These organisations have built networks of training providers and employers and help broker supply and demand for learning mobility and particularly placement opportunities. Euro Apprenticeship47 and Europe mobility are examples of these networks at European level, led by organisations committed to promoting quality learning opportunities through their members at a national level. But evidence suggests that the sport sector is neither well-understood by, nor engaged with these generic organisations that specialise in supporting and leading mobility programmes at a national level.
It is not surprising therefore that there is a lack of engagement from the sport sector (e.g. people with a disability, minorities) within European Union funded learning mobility opportunities.
The sport sector would welcome a more in-depth understanding and appreciation of its characteristics and requirements from the National Agencies. This would improve chances of success in bidding and ease the administrative and audit process.
Informal learning IN and THROUGH sport is highly valued by the Sector. A high emphasis on informal learning is also evident in the learning mobility funding programmes, however, there is a need to strengthen the recording and articulation of these outcomes so applications are stronger.
For example, it is often quoted that sport is “a good thing” but applications often fall short when it comes to explaining exactly how learning and developmental benefits accrue to the individual as a result on it in learning mobility programmes.
46 Europemobility - Mission: committed to cooperate to raise the quality and quantity of work placement and learning mobility opportunities across Europe - http://www.europemobility.tv/ 47 Euro Apprenticeship – Mission: to organise “in company learning mobility” or provide expertise, information, help and support to learning mobility projects for the benefit of SMEs, Skilled Crafts Companies, of apprentices and young people in work-based learning and training systems - http://www.euroapprenticeship.eu/en/home.html
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 154
Finally, sport is not immune from the generic challenges that face all those promoting learning mobility. Of these, language is a key factor that determines both the level of take up of mobility and the success of those learning mobility opportunities when they take place. It is perhaps surprising that this hasn’t featured more highly in the questionnaire responses as a barrier. Perhaps this is partly because sport has a universal language of its own. Everyone plays the same game with the same rules and common equipment and techniques.
Sport can be shared often without a common language, it can be demonstrated without detailed explanation. BUT, this is not enough when it comes to learning. An adequate level of language skills has to be shared between the individual and the host organisation offering the training or the placement. A breakdown in language is the biggest source of failure in learning mobility.
In moving forward with learning mobility in sport, adequate language skills will be essential. Programmes to prepare individuals and to ensure they have basic language competence will need to be considered in every programme and support and mentoring provided to participants. In the mission to improve the quality of learning mobility experiences, there is now an expectation from the funding agencies that Sending Organisations will adequately prepare individuals for their experience abroad, ensuring they have adequate language skills, a learning agreement that outlines what to expect from their experience and access to a Mentor for support and advice throughout the placement.
Providing this support and preparation for individuals is a challenge and where mobility has been successful in sport it has often been in group situations where squads of players have travelled together or where language schools have been partners in the programmes. In these instances the learners can be accompanied by staff from the Sending Organisation who provide support to them during the experience abroad.
8.2 CONCLUSIONS IN RELATION TO EU FUNDED PROGRAMMES (LLP 2007-2013)
This section of the Report focuses on the conclusions drawn from the consultation exercise in respect of each funding programme under LLP.
Only Erasmus, Leonardo and Youth in Action produced a sufficient level of response to enable meaningful conclusions to be drawn.
8.2.1 Leonardo da Vinci
Summary of key findings
Through the consultation carried out through the feasibility study it was discovered that:
Awareness of Leonardo 58.45%; organisations involved 14.32%; (Figure 10)
Of those involved, 77.2% were satisfied; (Figure 16)
41% of these respondents have been involved through Leonardo da Vinci learning mobility activities under the strand “Initial Vocational Training (IVT)”; (Figure 11)
30% under “VET Professionals (VETPRO)”; (Figure 11)
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 155
20% under “People in the Labour Market (PLM)”; (Figure 11)
48% of Leonardo da Vinci learning mobility activities were for Coaches and 46% for employed Staff of non for profit sport organisations; (Figure 15)
39% were for Students and 20% for non-professional Athletes. (Figure 15)
Conclusions:
The pursuit of a vocational qualification has been the driver for this EU funded programme. Any learning mobility experience must be structured to produce real, valid evidence of an individual’s competence, knowledge and skills that can be validated on the learner’s record. Therefore participation in this programme has depended on the nature of VET qualifications in Member States in sport. Qualifications that involve practical experience and assessment are the most likely to provide the right structure for traineeships in companies or organisations in another country.
In other Sectors for example, young people go abroad to practice their skills in a new context or to learn from experts in another country which has a record of best practice or may hold a special technique or expertise that is not available in their home country. Many sport qualifications involve practical skills – coaching, teaching and instructing are good examples.
These could provide good opportunities for mobility and Sport Federations seem to be the key to expanding the level of learning mobility within the sector. Federations are responsible for many of the qualifications that could provide the basis for mobility and for many sports people are best placed to lead on creating mobility for many sports people.
Success has been achieved in this programme where clear structured learning outcomes have been identified for each participant. The pursuit of a qualification or an apprenticeship where evidence from the mobility activity can be recorded and assessed has improved the chances of a successful application and programme. Indeed, the existence of a recognised apprenticeship programme for aspiring athletes in the UK48 accounts for a significant proportion of the IVT activity in sport in the UK.
But, Apprenticeships in sport are rare. This is probably due to the historical roots of sport existing in the voluntary sector and training structures are still more geared towards the volunteer than the professional paid employee and in general Apprenticeships are seen as a route to paid employment.
Another indicator that sport is not a mature employment market is that Sport organisations are not significantly involved in the “People in the Labour Market (PLM)” strand of Leonardo da Vinci. Nor has sport been a major target for National Agencies.
The nature of sport as a labour market and its special skills needs and characteristics are not well understood and often underestimated by National Agencies, and sport has not been well represented in the generic learning mobility support mechanisms established for other Sectors in most EU States (for example, the EuropeMobility Network and the Euro Apprenticeships Network).
48 known as AASE - the Advance Apprenticeship in Sporting Excellence - www.skillsactive.com
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 156
8.2.2 Erasmus
Summary of key findings
Through the large consultation carried out through the sport sector it was discovered:
Awareness of Erasmus 82.16%; organisations involved 13.15%; (Figure 10)
Of those involved, 78.4% were satisfied; (Figure 16)
84% of these respondents have been involved through Erasmus learning mobility activities under the strand “student mobility for Studies”; (Figure 12)
58% under “mobility for teaching assignments”; (Figure 12)
47% under “student mobility for placements”; (Figure 12)
Only 18% of Erasmus learning mobility projects identified by the sport sector through the online survey were for athletes; (Figure 15)
A number of universities have an established programme in sport related studies under Erasmus; these seem to be largely partnership arrangements between individual Institutions.
Conclusions:
From these statistics, it can be seen that there has been a small but successful programme of learning mobility under Erasmus in Higher Education in sport, which can provide a basis for future activity.
There is an established (small) group of Institutions engaged in Erasmus activities but in discussion it seems that these partnerships whilst stable, have become rather stagnant. Each University is responsible for building its own partnerships and their activity is not co-ordinated to any real extent at present. Hence, relationships are no longer dynamic.
Benefit would be gained if the opportunity can be taken with the launch of Erasmus+, to explore the potential of creating a European Network between these national Education and Training Institutions to explore new and innovative ways for collaborating, supporting and encouraging learning mobility of individuals.
In particular, a workshop focussing on the challenges of engaging athletes in the Higher Education stream of Erasmus+ would help to identify practical solutions to the particular challenges faced by this group who are trying to balance their education with their sport career. The new Dual Career Guidelines produced in 2013 by the DGEAC Expert Group on Sport and Education provide a blueprint for national best practice into which the concept of mobility could be built.
With regard to the other special groups at the centre of this Study, opportunities for mobility for students and staff in Universities have been limited. In particular, employers in sport, including Sport Federations have not been heavily engaged in an Erasmus placement programme. This needs to be nurtured in the future if the benefits of mobility are to be achieved for sport.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 157
8.2.3 Youth in Action
Summary of key findings
Through the European and national consultation carried out through the study it was discovered that:
Awareness of Youth in Action 33%; organisations involved 6.8%; (Figure 10)
Number of respondents with experience of these programmes is small;
Of those involved, 72.4% were satisfied; (Figure 16);
42% of these respondents have been involved through Youth in Action learning mobility activities under the strand “Youth Exchanges”; (Figure 13)
38% under “Youth Initiatives”; 31% under “Meetings for Youth”; and 27% under “European Voluntary Service”; (Figure 13)
62% of Youth in Action learning mobility activities were for Volunteers and 42% for Students/Trainees; (Figure 15)
Conclusions:
This programme should be particularly relevant to voluntary sport organisations in grassroots sport and youth organisations that use sport as a tool for engaging young people. Some excellent examples have been discovered during the Feasibility Study but overall, the level of engagement by the sport sector has been disappointing.
Engagement has been limited because of the lack of resources and lack of experience of European programmes amongst the voluntary organisations that exist in sport. In addition, it has been reported that quality exchange opportunities have proved to be difficult to find.
Applications that have focussed on sporting participation and have failed to demonstrate broader cultural benefits, which are reflected in the criteria of the Youth in Action programme, have been rejected by the European Commission.
8.3 CONCLUSIONS IN RELATIONS TO OLYMPIC PROGRAMMES
The opportunities offered and identified through the Olympic movement provide highly appealing experiences for a range of individuals within sport. They provide opportunity for interaction between Sport Federations and staff/coaches and athletes that could lead to the development of further mobility under Erasmus+ as relevant individuals and organisations from across the world are brought together under the Olympic banner.
Sport should be encouraged to capitalise on these opportunities as a means of mobility for applicable individuals, but the Olympic programmes will not necessarily allow for the establishment of new partnerships to address specific needs and issues through learning mobility activities; as stated, sport is very much encouraged to attempt this through the Erasmus+ programme.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 158
8.4 CONCLUSIONS PER CATEGORIES
8.4.1 Non-Professional Athletes
Summary
Through the consultation carried out through the sport sector it was discovered that:
83% of respondents (303 organisations) believe that learning mobility can be beneficial or very beneficial for non-professional athletes; (Figure 32)
86% believe that learning mobility would be beneficial to help the athlete to prepare for his/her second career after they have finished their sporting career; (Figure 33)
65.7% believe it should support their improvement as an elite athlete; (Figure 33)
Learning mobility can support both the sporting and educational development of athletes;
The participation of non-professional athletes in learning mobility has been very limited;
The main barriers identified for learning mobility of athletes are the financial constraints, the lack of awareness of opportunities, the lack of guidance and the fact to be considered as not eligible target groups on EU funded programmes; (Figure 40)
The engagement of National Sport Federations in these EU funded programmes as eligible organisation is seen as important by over 75% of respondents, it is seen as the best (only) way in most sports of ensuring that mobility can be linked with high level training; (Figure 37)
69% of the respondents believe there should be a special learning mobility programme funded by the EU for non-professional athletes. (Figure 36)
Conclusions for non professional athletes:
Athletic and sporting ability is no respecter of academic achievement. Elite/non-professional athletes are drawn from a range of academic backgrounds and have a range of academic interests and prospective areas of study and dual career ambitions. These issues have been highlighted in the recent European Commission report on Dual Careers and the Dual Career guidelines, which have been agreed as a way to support athletes in their chosen career route ways.
Athletes need to be able to balance their sporting development with their broader education and employment needs and being able to continue their training and competition commitments are essential. Indeed, being able to pursue your sport and your academic studies in readiness for a future career or to maintain a parallel career alongside your participation in elite sport as an amateur, is increasingly being recognised not just as a desirable objective for all non-professional elite athletes but as a right.
Sport Federations, educational institutes and training centres are being encouraged to include dual careers as a concept in their planning and provision.
Potentially, to build opportunities for learning mobility into this complex situation may seem too difficult. When juggling academic study with athletic training is already a challenge, how can the dimension of mobility be built in to the planning?
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 159
It is because these matters are currently in the fore-front of thinking at a European level that now is a good time to consider building learning mobility into the new Dual Career guidelines, the Sport Chapter and into the actions emerging from them. For example, Institutes that provide flexible academic timetabling that can respond to the training needs of athletes and have high level sport facilities and support services for their national students, could be encouraged to work together to create a Network of dual career centres that could then work together to provide and support learning mobility opportunities.
It must also be remembered that not all athletes wish to pursue their academic or vocational study in a sport related subject and therefore the whole Institution needs to be part of this Dual Career approach if all the needs of athletes can be satisfied. But the University Sport Departments are the key entry point and if the challenges are being solved at a National level then to spread this benefit to include learning mobility becomes a smaller step.
However, in many cases, the demand for mobility from athletes is not to support their academic study but to improve their sporting career. Some Institutes might offer better or more appropriate facilities, training or coaching opportunities than their home country. But, at a University level, athletes need to have the right academic capabilities as well as their sporting ability and unless they can participate in an appropriate programme of study then sporting mobility will not be possible.
In short, a number of ways in which Higher Education can provide better opportunities for these athletes, so they can benefit from learning mobility, need to be explored. This would include flexibility in educational programming, access to quality sport facilities and services, co-operation between universities and federations and a willingness to share these resources between Member States.
This challenge exists at vocational level as well. Sport performance is not recognised as a vocational learning outcome in the same way as other occupations – e.g. electrician, plumber. The absence of structured qualifications and learning outcomes for sport performance is a barrier to engagement as learning. Only in the UK has such a qualification been identified and this model is worthy of further exploration to assess whether aspects of the occupational standards could be utilised in other national federations.
The development of an athlete is largely in the hands of the Federation for their sport in their home country. Once an athlete is in the performance pathway for their sport and approaching the elite level, their training and preparation for competition is largely controlled by the national Federation. There are opportunities for the Federation to organise training in another country as part of this preparation. The majority of these sessions, particularly when organised for squads of athletes, are the financial responsibility of the Federations, a few examples of which have been reported through both the questionnaire and national consultation exercise. There is no obvious reason as to why this sort of programme should not continue and the existence of European funding is not a pre-requisite for their success.
Some Federations have been able to access EU mobility funding for younger athletes (16-18) by placing these athletes on formal full-time training programmes linked to an apprenticeship (UK) and building in periods of mobility training in another country. This has only been successfully achieved
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 160
when the learning outcomes can be properly recorded against the requirements of the apprenticeship.
Sport could therefore explore the development of educational linked programmes such as apprenticeships and qualifications that describe the education required to become an elite athlete.
8.4.2 Coaches in non-for-profit sport organisations
Summary
Through the wide consultation carried out through the study it has been discovered that:
92% of the respondents (303 organisations) believe that learning mobility can be beneficial or very beneficial for coaches in non for profit sport organisations; (Figure 32)
The link between mobility and the gaining of qualifications is strongest for coaches than other priority groups with 75.6% of the respondents identifying it as essential or important; (Figure 34)
To gain experience, work practice and informal learning is highly valued in this learning mobility with 89.9% of respondents believing it to be essential or important; (Figure 34)
The main barriers identified for learning mobility of coaches are the financial constraints, the lack of awareness of opportunities and the lack of guidance and encouragement; (Figure 41)
European Sport Federations see mobility as important in raising overall standards in their sport through spreading best practice.
Conclusions for coaches:
Amongst the four specific groups that have the subject of special attention in this Feasibility Study, coaches are the best placed to participate in learning mobility. Qualifications are increasingly regarded as essential for all coaches, paid and unpaid. In some countries there is a statutory requirement to have a qualification approved either by the Ministry or by the relevant sport Federation to be authorised to work in the sector. Every Federation has a structure of training and qualifications for coaches which provides the basis for learning and progression and which in turn can provide a framework into which mobility can be built.
At the top level of elite and professional sport there are many role models amongst coaches who illustrate the global market that is growing in coaching and the mobility that is possible. To prepare for these employment opportunities by gathering experience of coaching in other countries is seen as a valuable step in the career pathways of aspiring coaches.
Building learning mobility into a coach’s pathway is therefore desirable and their active pursuit of qualifications provides a structure for recording the learning undertaken during periods of mobility. So, what seems to be lacking?
Firstly, there is no structure that links coaches with real opportunities for gaining experience abroad. Coaches often work in relatively isolated situations at grassroots level sports clubs and community organisations. Many are part-time or are volunteers. To step out of these arrangements to enjoy a
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 161
period of experience or training in another country is a major step that coaches need help and support to take.
Secondly, the importance of qualifications in coaching can be a double edged sword, the content of qualifications differs country to country and often the previous experience of a coach will not be recognised in a different country.
Greater collaboration between national sport Federations would greatly improve access and take up of mobility for coaches with corresponding benefits accruing to the coach and to sport as best practice is shared and built upon.
This collaboration could include:
The mapping of qualifications country to country to develop synergy and identify pathways;
The development of recording tools to be used during periods of experience and working abroad;
The general promotion of learning opportunities that can be supported under Erasmus+ and the identification of specific learning opportunities with other Sport Federations;
Leadership from European Federations to co-ordinate mobility and encourage synergy between countries.
8.4.3 Staff employed in non-for-profit sport organisations
Summary
Through the consultation implemented within the sport sector it has been discovered that:
82% of organisations (262 respondents) believe that learning mobility for the staff employed within non-profit sport organisations can be beneficial or very beneficial; (Figure 32)
81.5% consider gaining experience and work practice (informal learning) as the most important outcome of these learning mobility activities for staff; (Figure 34)
Only 57.3% of respondents see the acquisition of a national qualification as an important outcome of learning mobility; (Figure 34)
The main barriers identified for learning mobility of staff are financial barriers and the lack of encouragement and awareness of opportunities; (Figure 42)
National Sports Federations are seen as the most appropriate eligible organisations for learning mobility activities.
Conclusions for staff:
With the emergence of co-ordinated sport policy at a European level, there is a growing awareness of the need and benefit of sharing best practice and developing common solutions to shared problems. Issues such as good governance, anti-doping, match fixing etc. now have prominence in discussions at a European level between sports and are being enshrined as key priority areas for European action in the new Erasmus+ Sport Chapter.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 162
Learning mobility is seen as a key tool to encourage this interaction and through this interaction, good practice can be shared and developed further. Placements and work shadowing are seen to be more appropriate than the pursuit of formal qualifications for this category of people.
Sports Federations are key to opening up these opportunities and there seems to be a growing awareness amongst federations of the benefits that could accrue but they need support in order to structure and deliver learning mobility in a quality way.
The generic support Networks that have been developed at National and European level can be a source of good practice and advice so that the key fundamentals of good practice can be established in sport.
As learning mobility is promoted in sport organisations, it must be remembered that these organisations are generally small. The absence of key staff can be a problem and it can be difficult to give the time and support necessary to a foreign trainee or “shadower” when acting as a host. The support and advice of an experienced co-ordinator can be an important aspect in unlocking the potential for mobility for this group.
8.4.4 Volunteers in non-for-profit sport organisations (other than coaches)
Summary
Through the large consultation carried out through the Study it has been discovered that:
73% of respondents (230 organisations) feel that learning mobility can be beneficial or very beneficial for volunteers (other than coaches); (Figure 32)
74.1% of respondents consider gaining experience and work practice as the most important outcome of such mobility activities for volunteers whereas 50.8% see these experiences abroad could contribute to the acquisition of a national qualification or license; (Figure 34)
The main barriers identified by respondents for volunteers taking part in EU funded learning mobility activities are the financial constraints, the lack of awareness of opportunities, the lack of guidance and the fact to be considered as not eligible target groups; (Figure 43)
Organisations in this sector admit to a lack of expertise and experience in preparing applications and organising mobility activities and partnerships.
Conclusions for volunteers:
Volunteers are fundamental to sport. Volunteers operate at all levels in sports organisations from leadership roles on Boards and committees to essential practical hands-on roles in clubs at a grassroots level.
Whilst qualifications are seen as less important for this group than others, there is a recognition that they need the right skills for the role in order to give them the confidence to be effective in those roles. Volunteers, like athletes, come from a range of educational backgrounds and have different capabilities. They also may have many other demands on their time. These factors will place a natural limit on the uptake of mobility opportunities.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 163
Nevertheless, there is clear recognition of the benefits of learning mobility and these may be most appropriate for those operating at a leadership level in sports organisations, which issues like governance are of major interest.
Sport Federations again are key to the development of mobility opportunities for volunteers that will largely be in their ambit in clubs or in the Federation itself.
Support for the application process and in structuring and delivering mobility opportunities are needed.
The pursuit of qualifications is not seen as important for this group as it is for coaches but any successful application for mobility must clearly articulate the learning outcomes from the mobility experience and be able to record these outcomes. Indeed, the volunteers would deserve to have their learning recorded as this could have benefits for them in their working lives and careers and may be transferable outside their specific volunteering role in sport. Support in these techniques should be a priority if organisations are to gain the confidence to enter the mobility world and the capability to support those undertaking the opportunities created.
8.5 THE WAY AHEAD THROUGH THE ERASMUS+ SPORT CHAPTER
Sport should continue to actively participate in all strands of the new Erasmus+ programme and particularly under key action 1 entitled “Learning Mobility” to support the mobility of individuals from the sector across Europe.
As mentioned under the review of the Erasmus+ Sport Chapter (chapter 6.2.5), there is certainly an opportunity for the provision of learning mobility within transnational projects that are based on the agreed priorities of the sport chapter of the new Erasmus+ programme. There is no reason for work experience, job shadowing and staff exchanges for instance, to not be embedded within such projects. Additional specific actions should be considered through the Sport Chapter to enhance the take-up and ensure the benefits of mobility can be fully available to the Sport Sector (see chapter on recommendations for more detail).
Sport needs this investment to help create the conditions where learning mobility can thrive and grow in sport.
Note: There had been some concern expressed during the consultation that, if the funding for concrete learning mobility activities for the sport sector is covered only through the sport chapter, then the sector might reduce its opportunities for such activities and decrease its chance of being successful through Key Action 1 of Erasmus+.
The European Commission has made it very clear during the workshop in Vilnius (October 2013) that concrete opportunities for individual mobility will not be supported directly through the sport chapter i.e. applications from organisations to directly support individuals undergoing mobility will NOT be considered at a European level but instead the sport sector will be eligible through every strand of the new Erasmus+ programme and direct applications should be made under the criteria and through the administrative arrangements that pertain to each stream. These are largely decentralised activities through the National Agencies.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 164
CHAPTER 9 – SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOBILITY MEASURES FOR SPORT IN EU
The final outcome of this Feasibility Study was to produce a set of recommendations as a result of the extensive consultation carried out through the Sport Sector, for initial consideration by DGEAC (Sport Unit), with the following objective:
To increase the level of take up of learning mobility in sport and to maximise the benefits of learning mobility for individuals, for organisations and for the sector as a whole.
It is proposed that this objective be adopted by the DGEAC (Sport Unit) to provide a focus for its interest and intervention in learning mobility.
To achieve this objective, it is felt that the engagement of sport in learning mobility needs to be given a new impetus, capitalising on the increased profile of mobility generated both by the launch of Erasmus+ itself and the significant interest generated through the consultation process in the Feasibility Study, which has identified considerable latent interest and demand from the sector.
The recommendations and actions put forward for consideration through this final report reflect the overwhelming conclusions of this Feasibility Study that:
Sport would benefit from increased learning mobility;
The new Erasmus+ programme offers a good range of opportunities to financially support learning mobility in the Sport Sector.
In making these recommendations, it should be noted that the starting point is that:
No concrete mobility opportunities for individuals should be financially supported directly through the Sport Chapter of Erasmus+.
Therefore, it is proposed that:
The Sport Chapter should be used to create the conditions to support sport in accessing and implementing an enhanced level of quality learning mobility.
To achieve the increase in mobility that is both desired by the European Union and the Sport Sector, a 5 Steps approach is proposed:
Step 1: Simplify the presentation of Learning Mobility opportunities;
Step 2: Improve and enhance the application processes, procedures and systems that support learning mobility;
Step 3: Raise awareness IN the Sport Sector;
Step 4: Raise awareness OF the characteristics and specificities of the Sport Sector;
Step 5: Create the conditions in Sport to facilitate learning mobility;
The following pages describe the proposed actions to address each of these steps.
It is suggested that the four main actors to achieve this are the European Commission / EACEA, National Agencies and the sport and education sectors and the proposed actions have been broken down accordingly within Annex 18.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 165
STEP 1: SIMPLIFY THE PRESENTATION OF LEARNING MOBILITY OPPORTUNITIES
The consultation during this Study has revealed that the Sports Movement finds the learning mobility opportunities offered under the old Lifelong Learning Programme to be confusing and difficult to access and understand. Proposed recommendations:
Reduce and simplify the number of EU funded learning mobility opportunities in Erasmus+
Communicate using simple, accessible, clear and consistent information about learning mobility opportunities for potential beneficiaries
Improve the quality of information and guidance on learning mobility opportunities and grant availability for the sector
Make information easily accessible to all individuals interested in learning mobility, for example through centralised web portals or tools
Provide multi-lingual material on learning mobility opportunities to reduce language barriers
Be consistent in the use of words and key terms within EU funded opportunities to create clarity and avoid misunderstanding of the different opportunities
Make information easily accessible to all staff, volunteers and members from the sport sector to encourage learning mobility
Make information easily accessible to staff and students from the education sector to encourage learning mobility
The education sector should work more closely with the sport movement to create learning opportunities for people in sport.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 166
STEP 2: IMPROVE AND ENHANCE THE PROCESSES, PROCEDURES AND SYSTEMS THAT SUPPORT LEARNING MOBILITY
Many sport organisations have been deterred from engaging with learning mobility because of the complexity of the administrative and financial processes and they perceive they lack the expertise and resources needed to apply to such EU funded opportunities. Proposed recommendations:
Explore the possibility for new potential beneficiaries (organisations planning to submit a bid) to express interest and receive advice before developing a full application
Offer advice and support to learners and teachers interested in taking part in learning mobility
Improve the standard advice and support available to sport organisations and individuals interested in developing a bid and carrying out a learning mobility experience abroad
Provide clear and consistent information on financial and contractual issues
Simplify the content of the application form and make the biding process easier and more flexible
Reduce administrative, bureaucratic and legal burdens in both the application process and the management of projects when successful
Ensure rules are clearly promoted and understood by potential beneficiaries and successful organisations/individuals
Allow a degree of flexibility in the application rules to accommodate the special needs of sports organisations, particularly voluntary organisations
Propose multiple deadlines during the year to submit applications for learning mobility
Obtain regular feedback from successful promoters and participants
Encourage transparent assessment and selection procedures
Ensure assessors of learning mobility applications have a good knowledge and understanding of the sport sector’s specificities and challenges, and consider orientation days into which sport can be presented and promoted to assessors.
Consider the introduction of quality assurance procedures for each aspect of mobility. Ensure that quality outcomes (as opposed to processes) are the main measures for monitoring
Improve procedures and guidelines for the validation and recognition of both informal and non-formal learning and engage the sport sector to a far greater extent in the use of these tools
Explore the use of generic tools for the recognition of informal and non-formal learning so that learners gain recognition
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 167
Address the issue of validation and recognition of knowledge, skills and competencies acquired abroad
Disseminate tools to support non formal and informal learning or reinforce outcomes from non-formal learning
Ensure the implementation and use of existing EU instruments which facilitate the transfer and validation of the learning outcomes of mobility experience between countries (e.g. EQF, ECVET)
Provide guidance to mobile individuals after their return from a learning mobility programme on how to make use of the competences acquired abroad
Improve cooperation and communication between national agencies, the European commission and the Executive Agency
Ensure a consistent approach of monitoring and recording statistics and good practice between EU national agencies and the European Commission
Develop procedures to support cooperation and partnership with third countries.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 168
STEP 3: RAISE AWARENESS IN THE SPORT SECTOR
Lack of awareness is the biggest single barrier which has been identified through the consultation to the take up of learning mobility. Proposed recommendations:
Prepare and implement a specific European programme of awareness raising amongst sport organisations which focuses on learning mobility and presents the opportunities in the new Erasmus+ programme
Follow up the awareness programme by promoting a series of European events for interested organisations in the sport sector to present, support and discuss in detail, the issues around the practical implementation of learning mobility opportunities
Promote Learning Mobility as a key priority within the work of the Sport Unit by incorporating learning mobility within the new guidelines on Dual Careers and by promoting mobility (exchange of staff, job shadowing, and work experience) between sport federations as part of transnational projects under the Sport Chapter of Erasmus+, to support policy priorities such as Good Governance. The Sport Unit should explore the potential to fund individual learning mobility opportunities as part of these projects.
Implement campaigns on learning mobility to reach the sport sector. Make use of new, creative and interactive ways to disseminate and raise awareness of learning mobility opportunities and benefits to all targeted stakeholders from the sport sector at the European level (e.g. events, central database, evidence of past good practice, online information, and workshops)
Establish a centralised online tool to gather information about learning mobility opportunities in the sport sector and to guide interested organisations / potential candidates to find relevant information about which sub-program/action/opportunity to bid for
Enlist the support of European sport federations, to encourage networking and mobility partnerships between their member national federations, thereby supporting their athletes, coaches, staff and volunteers to actively participate in mobility
Share best practice and good examples of learning mobility activities within the sport sector
Disseminate good practice examples of learning mobility from other Sectors to the sport sector to encourage sport organisations and individuals to take part in such experiences
Promote learning mobility to national sport federations to encourage them to make learning mobility a central component of their national strategies to improve sport and its overall impact
Use national testimonials from beneficiaries and encourage exchange between mobile and non-mobile individuals
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 169
Work on collaboration between the education sector and the sport movement to create opportunities for learning mobility
Organise national events (e.g. workshops, round tables, seminars) for the sport sector stakeholders (e.g. Federations, National Olympic Committee, employer organisations) to present them all learning mobility opportunities
Communicate the potential benefits and added value of such experiences abroad for individuals and organisations
Disseminate and raise awareness of learning mobility opportunities and benefits to learners and teachers in sport
Incorporate learning mobility into the adoption of the dual career guidelines and promote the opportunities to sport.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 170
STEP 4: RAISE AWARENESS OF THE SPORT SECTOR
Respondents from the Sport Sector have highlighted that there is a significant lack of understanding of the sector and some of its special characteristics which has resulted in applications being rejected and duplication of effort and bureaucracy during the contracting and monitoring processes. Proposed recommendations:
Promote the sport sector to national agencies to ensure a full knowledge and understanding of the realities and specificities of the sport sector
Promote sport to all National Agencies as a sector of employment with significant learning potential and social benefit
Improve the availability and quality of national statistics on transnational mobility so that activity in the sport sector can be clearly identified
Alongside these statistics, collect evidence of good practice in learning mobility activities carried out and funded for the sport sector by the European Commission – centralised and/or decentralised activities
Establish a central monitoring system to measure the number of learning mobility activities funded by the European Commission in the sport sector through the new Erasmus+ programme at the European and national level
Use this information to promote an awareness of the Sport Sector with all National Agencies by sharing information and examples of successful activities in the sport sector which can be replicated in other countries
Establish and support a lead co-ordinating organisation in each country to build and develop an understanding with the National Agency on the needs of the Sport Sector.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 171
STEP 5: CREATE THE CONDITIONS IN SPORT TO FACILITATE LEARNING MOBILITY Making learning mobility a culture in the sport sector demands change from sport itself, from the education and training providers in sport and some support from the EC. Proposed recommendations:
Help sport to engage more with the existing structures and organisations that already support learning mobility at a national and European level
Establish lead organisations at National Level to co-ordinate and support the engagement of the sport sector with learning mobility (example: Lithuania)
Promote and explain the use of EU tools – such ECVET, EQAVET, EUROPASS, Youth Pass etc. and encourage their integration into sport federation systems for training
Support the creation of a central mechanism (a hub) at European level to lead and support the uptake of Learning Mobility in the sport Sector
Establish a workshop programme to promote quality in the application process, explaining and discussing the requirements for quality applications
Develop and disseminate tools to assist the successful implementation of mobility e.g. exemplar learning agreements
Establish a sharing culture through which participants share their problems and solutions
Sport Organisations should actively pursue becoming sending/hosting organisations
Sport organisations should seek to engage more with the existing co-ordinating organisations that work in mobility projects in each country
Organisations in sport should as employers embrace mobility and offer opportunities to their staff and volunteers to participate in learning mobility
Promote the inclusion of mobility within existing qualifications and training programmes under the control of sport Federations, particularly for coaches and volunteers, and ensure that the framework exists to ensure that learning outcomes achieved abroad can be recognised and recorded within those qualifications
Offer flexibility in the curriculum of training programs to make easier for students to spend time abroad.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 172
PROPOSAL FOR ACTION - CREATE A LEADERSHIP MODEL FOR THE SPORT SECTOR
The steps outlined above are not sequential. Leadership and co-ordination is required to implement the changes necessary as a holistic package. Sport has many networks at European and National level – but these are fragmented and have different spheres of interest and influence. They lack the capacity to work together and learning mobility has never been a focus for them.
A key recommendation from this Feasibility Study is that Sport needs to establish its own mechanism firstly at a European Level to take responsibility and give leadership to Learning Mobility in the Sport Sector.
For the purposes of this Study this organisation has been named the “European Learning Mobility Hub for Sport” (the Hub).
The primary issue is that these recommendations provide a list of actions that together would contribute to the development of a learning mobility culture in sport. BUT they need to be given impetus and leadership to ensure the actions are taken forward in a co-ordinated and effective way. It needs to create the capacity to act as a one stop shop to assist sport to understand and access all parts of Erasmus+. Our recommendation is for a single organisation to take on this role or for a consortium of organisations to work together to create a single organisation to carry out the role of the Hub.
We have used the term Hub to demonstrate that is a single point of contact at European level. It would encourage and support the development of a national lead organisation in each country that would lead the development and submission of bids.
HOW COULD IT BE FUNDED? OPTIONS
a) A special open call for tender launched by the European Commission / Sport Unit through the Sport Chapter;
b) A collaborative partnership funded under the current Sport chapter.
c) A transnational partnership led by an existing, leading European organisation or a consortium of euro organisations (Erasmus+ Key Action 2: Co-operation for Innovation and the Exchange of Good Practices).
It is clear that existing European Organisations in sport have Networks of members and are potentially well placed to respond to mobility opportunities and organise potential projects but they are fragmented in their areas of interest. By this we mean that they are focussed on one sport or one type of individual (athlete or coach) and do not have a broad view of the full range of learning needs of all the categories of people that are the focus of this Study.
A consortium of European organisations could be an option BUT the emphasis is on a single message from sport to the National Agencies about the needs and capabilities of sport and a single port of call for federations and training providers is required to give them advice and support on all aspects of Erasmus+.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 173
The Hub will be supported by a network of consortia at national level, each with a lead organisation or coordinator. These consortia will be built around existing national good practice examples (e.g. Lithuania, England).
EXPECTED ROLE OF THE “EUROPEAN LEARNING MOBILITY HUB FOR SPORT”:
To act as a central point and focus to encourage the sector to engage with learning mobility;
To lead the overall European awareness and dissemination programme on learning mobility in sport;
To encourage and support European Sport Federations, social partners and other key European Sport networks to adopt a “mobility” culture within the sector;
To research, collate, analyse and disseminate good practice and concrete examples of learning mobility in the sport sector;
To develop and disseminate central tools to support quality mobility opportunities, for example: Model partnership and learning agreements; Quality assurance systems.
To act as a co-ordinator linking potential sending and hosting organisations to form a delivery European Network for learning mobility in the sector;
To build relationships at a National level to support the creation of mobility Networks in the Sector in each member state
To identify a lead organisation(s) in the sector in each country to lead the development of these national mobility Networks which, in turn, will form the basis of a European consortium around the Hub to support the on-going sustainability of activity through the Hub at a European level
To achieve this, the Hub would organise a round table to select the lead organisation and discuss the issues arising from and around this report. They would also meet with the National Agencies to plan the awareness programme and events for the country
To build links with National Agencies and the existing generic co-ordinating organisations;
To encourage sport employers including sport federations (as employers) to come forward and engage with mobility, providing opportunities for placements for those in Higher Education and initial Vocational Education and Training and supporting opportunities for exchanges with other Federations ;
To propose concrete advice and support to sport organisations and/or individuals interested in taking part through a learning mobility experience;
To provide assistance to interested organisations with clarifying the rules, criteria of assessment and completing the application form;
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 174
To develop and provide tools to collate statistics and good practices of learning mobility activities carried out and funded by the European Commission through the sport sector;
Move to integrate the sport sector with existing and establishing learning mobility organisations (co-ordinators) at a national level.
PROCESS AND BUDGET:
The set-up of the “European Learning Mobility Hub for Sport” should be prioritised and financially supported as a specific call within the Sport Chapter under the strand “collaborative partnership.”
We understand that there will be a major promotion of the new Erasmus+ programme and that the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) will have a key role in disseminating the new programme, but sport needs to get involved and needs to organise itself to a greater extent than it has previously done. The Hub would work in partnership with the Executive Agency and the National Agencies to explain the needs and opportunities in sport for mobility and to take these messages to sport and to offer sport a direct and clear route to get engaged AND to give the support necessary in defining mobility activities, finding partnerships, developing bids etc.
Therefore, the Hub would work in partnership with the Executive Agency to create specific dissemination and support programme for sport organisations. The Hub will build on the generic communication and advice programme planned by the Executive Agency.
Looking at the list of tasks to be carried out and in order to ensure a high level impact, the European Hub will need to be supported through a contract agreement of a minimum of 3 years during which time the aim will be to build the capacity of the Sport Sector and to grow demand for, and the supply of, learning mobility opportunities. A detailed work plan for each year of activity will be developed by the “European Hub” and validated by the European Commission.
All activities to be financed should be concrete, action oriented and provide a response to the conclusions and recommendations and presented within the final report of this Feasibility Study.
During this period the “European Hub” will lead the dissemination campaign on Learning Mobility, and will provide leadership for the Sport Sector, advice and support to prepare for full participation in Learning Mobility through Erasmus+.
In terms of budget, the expected grant to be awarded for the set up and implementation of the 3 years action plan of the “European Learning Mobility Hub for Sport” should be of 500,000€.
The objective will be for the “European Consortium” to become financially sustainable in a longer term so the grant from the European Commission could be split as follows:
Year 1: 200,000€ / Year 2: 200,000€ / Year 3: 100,000€
This funding will support the core activities outlined above.
In addition, the Hub should be allocated a further budget of:
Year 1: 200,000€ / Year 2: 200,000€ / Year 3: 50,000€
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 175
This additional budget will be used to support the dissemination and awareness activities. It will be allocated to support the set-up of the national lead organisations and the national mobility networks and will make a small contribution to the direct costs of the dissemination programme – such as events, translation and leaflets. It is expected that the National Agencies and the lead organisations will provide concrete match funding for these activities.
The Hub should submit a detailed plan for these activities on its inception for approval by the European Commission.
During this first period, the Hub will work to build a network of lead national organisations each with an established consortium of sport organisations and partners in their country willing to engage with mobility as a basis for applying for concrete mobility activities.
Each national lead organisation will become members of the Hub paying a subscription for advice, tools and monitoring that will secure the sustainability of the Hub in the long term.
During the third year the Hub should submit a new business plan which would review the progress made and the impact of the activities. The plan will look to the future and demonstrate its sustainability and the need for any further on-going financial support.
CONCLUSION:
These recommendations represent a wide ranging programme of communication and reform. The programme needs leadership and resource to establish itself. It is further proposed that the programme be initiated and funded through the Sport Chapter as described in detail above and that it should be publicly promoted by the European Commission through DGEAC (Sport Unit) under the following headings:
2014 – Learning Mobility – awareness in Sport The Hub will be launched and the programme of awareness raising and dissemination will begin, highlighting the benefits of learning mobility and building the infrastructure necessary in sport to support the engagement of sport in the new programmes. This should be regarded as a preparatory year.
2015 – To be the year of “learning mobility in sport”. As a result of the awareness programme, Sport should be profiled and adopted at a national level as a priority sector, encouraging applications from the Sector for all relevant strands of the programme.
The structure should aim to work towards self-sufficiency from 2017. Self-sufficiency would flow at a national level by the increasing volume of successful mobility applications.
The authors of this report strongly believe that immense benefits will flow to Sport if it can adopt a culture of Learning Mobility. The European Commission has the opportunity to raise the whole profile of mobility in sport link to the launch of the new Erasmus+ programme.
The sector has demonstrated his willingness to move in this direction but the leadership offered by the Hub concept will be crucial to ensuring success.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 176
ANNEXES
CHAPTER 3 - ANALYSIS OF THE ACCESSIBILITY TO MOBILITY THROUGH CURRENT EU FUNDED PROGRAMMES ANNEX 1 - EU FUNDED LEARNING MOBILITY OPPORTUNITIES
ANNEX 2 - OLYMPIC MOVEMENT MOBILITY OPPORTUNITIES
ANNEX 3 - EXAMPLES OF LEARNING MOBILITY ACTIVITIES FROM THE SPORT SECTOR
CHAPTER 4 - MAPPING EXERCICE ON THE NEEDS AND BENEFITS OF MOBILITY IN SPORT ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE ANNEX 4 - ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE IN 7 LANGUAGES
ANNEX 5 - EUROPEAN SURVEY REPORT (QUALTRICS)
ANNEX 6 - NATIONAL SURVEY REPORT FOR BELGIUM (QUALTRICS)
ANNEX 7 - NATIONAL SURVEY REPORT FOR FINLAND (QUALTRICS)
ANNEX 8 - NATIONAL SURVEY REPORT FOR FRANCE (QUALTRICS)
ANNEX 9 - NATIONAL SURVEY REPORT FOR GERMANY (QUALTRICS)
ANNEX 10 - NATIONAL SURVEY REPORT FOR HUNGARY (QUALTRICS)
ANNEX 11 - NATIONAL SURVEY REPORT FOR ITALY (QUALTRICS)
ANNEX 12 - NATIONAL SURVEY REPORT FOR LITHUANIA (QUALTRICS)
ANNEX 13 - NATIONAL SURVEY REPORT FOR SPAIN (QUALTRICS)
ANNEX 14 - NATIONAL SURVEY REPORT FOR UK (QUALTRICS)
ANNEX 15 - NATIONAL FINDINGS FROM THE ONLINE CONSULTATION (Graphs)
CHAPTER 7 - COMPLETING THE CONSULTATION PROCESS - WORKSHOP ANNEX 16 - WORKING PAPER FOR THE CONSULTATION WORKSHOP
ANNEX 17 - DETAILED REPORT FROM THE CONSULTATION WORKSHOP
ANNEX 18 - SUMMARY OF THE DESK RESEARCH
CHAPTER 9 - SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOBILITY MEASURES FOR SPORT IN EU
ANNEX 19 – PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS BROKEN DOWN THROUGH MAIN ACTORS
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 177
REFERENCES
Ackers, L., G. Bryony, J. Guth, (2007), Moving People and Knowledge: Scientific Mobility in an Enlarging European Union: A summary Report, University of Liverpool.
Bracht, O. Engel, C. Janson, K. Over, A. Schomburg, H. and Teichler, U (2006) - The Professional Value of Erasmus Mobility, Final Report, External (interim) Evaluation of the Impact of ERASMUS Mobility (action 2 of the Socrates Community action programme; 2000 - 2006) on Students’ Access to Employment and Career Development, on Teachers’ Career Development and on Two Areas of Study to be Specified. Brussels, EC.
Brian Holmes, Director of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) – presentation made at the EU Sport Forum 2013 (Vilnius)
Commission of the European Communities (2009), “Green Paper: Promoting the learning mobility of young people”
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, New Skills for New Jobs Anticipating and matching labour market and skills needs (16/12/2008)
Conclusions of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 21 November 2008 on youth mobility (2008/C 320/03)
Council recommendation of 20 November 2008 on the mobility of young volunteers across the European Union (2008/C 319/03)
Council Conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020) [Official Journal C 119 of 28.5.2009]
Council conclusions of 19 November 2010 on the ‘Youth on the Move’ initiative — an integrated approach in response to the challenges young people face (2010/C 326/05)
Council of the European Union (2011), Council Recommendation of 28 June 2011 on “Youth on the move” – promoting the learning mobility of young people, OJEU C199 of 7.7.2011
Council conclusions on the role of education and training in the implementation of the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy (2011/C 70/01)
Council and the Commission joint progress report (2010) on the implementation of the ‘Education and Training 2010 work programme’ (2010/C 117/01)
Council and the Commission Joint Report (2012) on the implementation of the Strategic Framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020) (2012/C 70/05)
Council of Europe and European Commission (May 2013), Learning mobility and non- formal learning in European contexts - Policies, approaches and examples
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 178
Conclusions of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on dual careers for athletes (2013/C 168/04) – June 2013
DG Education and Culture (April 2011), Study on a possible framework to facilitate transnational mobility for placements at enterprises
DG Education and Culture (June 2012), Study on Mobility Developments in School Education, Vocational Education and Training, Adult Education and Youth Exchanges
DG Education and Culture, presentation of Erasmus+: The EU programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport 2014-2020
Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications
EOC EU Office (March 2011), Guidelines Promoting Dual Career in the EU.
European Commission (2007), White Paper on Sport
European Commission (2008), Report of the high level expert forum on mobility: Making learning mobility an opportunity for all.
European Commission (2008), Report of the High Level Expert Forum on Mobility. Making learning mobility an opportunity for all
European Commission (2009), Green Paper “Promoting the learning mobility of young people”, COM (2009) 329 final
European Commission (September 2010), Council recommendation Youth on the move, promoting the learning mobility of young people
European Commission (2011b), Impact of the Youth in Action Programme. 2011 Monitoring Survey
European Commission (2011), An Agenda for new skills and jobs: A European contribution towards full employment
European Commission (2011), Erasmus: Facts, Figures and Trends: The European Union support for student and staff exchanges and university cooperation in 2009/2010
European Commission (24th May 2011), Commission staff working paper on “the development of benchmarks on education and training for employability and on learning mobility”
European Commission (December 2011), Council regulation establishing for the period 2014-2020 the programme "Europe for Citizens"
European Commission (2012), Leonardo da Vinci Facts and Figures about EU support for vocational education and training 2007-2011
European Commission (May 2012), Facts and Figures about EU mobility programmes in Education, Training, Research and Youth.
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 179
European Commission, Expert Group on Education and Training in Sport (2013), EU Guidelines on Dual Careers of Athletes
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2006), Mobility in Europe: Analysis of the 2005 Eurobarometer survey on geographical and labour market mobility
EU Working Group EU Working Group "Education and Training in Sport" 1st meeting, 1 July 2009 - SUMMARY REPORT
EU Working Group "Education and Training in Sport" 2nd meeting, 9 - 10 December 2009, SUMMARY REPORT
EU Working Group "Education and Training in Sport" 3rd meeting, 19 - 20 May 2010, SUMMARY REPORT
Friedhelm Maiworm and Ulrich Teichler (2007), Study Abroad and Early Career: Experiences of Former Erasmus Students.
IDEA Consult (June 2010) - Study on mobility patterns and career paths of EU researchers
Lemmens Verlags & Mediengesellschaft (2006), EURODATA: Student mobility in European higher education/Maria Kelo/Ulrich Teichler/Bernd Wächter (eds.), Bonn.
OECD (2003) - The international mobility of researchers: recent trends and policy initiatives, Paris.
Official Journal of the European Union (November 2011), Council conclusions on a benchmark for learning mobility.
Panorama of European funding in the field of sport (2012), Confidential Document by Sport and Citizenship
Recchi, E. et al. (2006), ‘Geographical and Job Mobility in the EU’. DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Tender No. VT/2005/0107. Authors: Ettore Recchi, Emiliana Baldoni, Francesca Francavilla, Letizia Mencarini, CIUSPO, University of Florence.
Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning (2006/962/EC)
Report on Recommendations for a more Inclusive and Accessible LLP and the new Education and Training Programme (27/01/2012), The Inclusion Network
Rindicate (2008), Evidence on the main factors inhibiting mobility and career development of researchers, Brussels
“Study on young people’s lifestyles and sedentariness and the role of sport in the context of education and as a means of restoring the balance” - Final report - by Prof. Dr. Wolf- Dietrich Brettschneider, University of Paderborn and Prof. Dr. Roland Naul, University of Duisburg-Essen (2004)
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 180
The Bruges Communiqué on enhanced European Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training for the period 2011-2020 (07th December 2011)
TNS Qual+ at the request of Directorate-General for Justice (August 2010), Qualitative Eurobarometer: European Citizenship, Cross-Border Mobility, Europe
Ulrich Teichler, Irina Ferencz and Bernd Wächter (June 2011), Mapping mobility in European higher education Volume II: Case studies
FINAL REPORT Feasibility study on possible future mobility measures for sport in the EU 181