The European sport sector is entering a decisive phase in redefining its social model. As highlighted in this latest EASE Talk n°15—built on contributions from Oliver Liang of the International Labour Organization and Kaarel Nestor—social dialogue is no longer a peripheral issue, but a structural priority for the sector’s sustainability. Beyond governance and professionalization, it is social dialogue that enables the sport ecosystem to balance economic development with social responsibility.

A Cornerstone for Democratic and Economic Stability

In a globalized environment, social dialogue plays a central role in reducing tensions between employers and workers while fostering consensus on shared challenges. It strengthens democratic participation by ensuring that those directly concerned—employers, employees, and public authorities—actively contribute to shaping policies.

At European level, this principle is enshrined in Article 152 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which formally recognizes and promotes the role of social partners while respecting the diversity of national systems. In practice, this means that dialogue is not imposed from above but built through cooperation and mutual recognition.

In sport, however, this framework is still unevenly implemented.

A Sector Still Structuring Its Representation

On the employers’ side, EASE is progressively building a unified voice across Europe, representing organizations from non-profit sport, professional sport, and active leisure in multiple Member States. On the workers’ side, EU Athletes plays a leading role, gathering athlete and player associations across Europe.

This dual structure reflects an important shift: the recognition that sport is not just a cultural or recreational activity, but a labour market requiring structured industrial relations.

Yet, the sector remains fragmented. In many countries, employer organizations are still emerging, and employee representation is often limited to professional sport disciplines. This imbalance makes the development of genuine European-level dialogue both necessary and challenging.

Mapping the “Social Dialogue Gap” in Europe

A closer look at EU Member States reveals five distinct levels of development in sport social dialogue:

  • Global systems, where collective agreements cover the entire sport sector. Countries like Sweden exemplify this model, with well-established structures and comprehensive agreements.
  • Fragmented systems, where each sub-sector (non-profit, professional, leisure) is governed separately.
  • Partial systems, with agreements in at least two sub-sectors.
  • Reduced systems, limited to a single segment.
  • Empty systems, where no sector-specific agreements exist.

Several countries illustrate the challenges of transition. In Portugal, recent institutional developments—such as the creation of a Ministry of Sports—signal progress toward a more structured system, though collective bargaining remains limited. Meanwhile, Estonia represents an “empty system,” where social dialogue in sport is largely absent due to fragmentation and a historically weaker tradition of labour relations.

This diversity highlights a key issue: without coordinated efforts, the European sport sector risks deepening inequalities between countries and sub-sectors.

From Principles to Action: The Role of International Frameworks

To address these disparities, international organizations are providing essential guidance. The International Labour Organization has developed guidelines specifically targeting professional athletes, emphasizing that they must benefit from the same fundamental labour rights as any other workers.

These principles include:

  • The promotion of structured social dialogue between all stakeholders
  • Equal treatment and gender equality, including fair remuneration
  • Safe and healthy working environments, both physically and mentally
  • Strong safeguards against violence and harassment
  • Absolute prohibition of child labour

Such frameworks are crucial in setting minimum standards and encouraging convergence across national systems.

A Unique European Example: Professional Football

One notable success story comes from professional football, which remains the only sport to have established a fully structured European social dialogue. Since 2008, the EU Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee has brought together key stakeholders, including European Professional Football Leagues, European Club Association, FIFPRO, under the coordination of UEFA.

This model demonstrates that sector-wide dialogue is possible when organizations are sufficiently structured, representative, and capable of negotiating at transnational level. It also serves as a blueprint for other sports seeking to organize their industrial relations.

Building Legitimate and Representative Social Partners

A central challenge for the future lies in the recognition of social partners at European level. To be effective, organizations must meet several criteria:

  • Be formally integrated into national social partner structures
  • Have the capacity to negotiate binding agreements
  • Demonstrate representativeness across multiple Member States

For the sport sector, this implies continued investment in capacity building—particularly on the employers’ side—so that dialogue can take place on equal footing with employee representatives.

Toward a European Culture of Social Dialogue in Sport

The revival of social dialogue in sport ultimately reflects a broader transformation: the shift from a fragmented, often informal sector to a structured economic and social ecosystem. As emphasized during this EASE Talk, dialogue is not merely a procedural tool—it is a condition for trust, stability, and long-term development.

By strengthening representation, encouraging cross-border cooperation, and aligning with international labour standards, the European sport sector has the opportunity to build a genuine social model—one that protects workers, supports employers, and reinforces the societal role of sport.

The challenge now is clear: to move from isolated initiatives to a coherent European framework, where social dialogue becomes a reflex rather than an exception.