EASE is pleased to share the main takeaways from the 16th edition of EASE Talks, dedicated to Pay Transparency and Equality in the European Sport Sector.

This edition was based on the intervention of Mr Samuel Engblom, Swedish Deputy Equality Ombudsman and Chair of the Equinet cluster dedicated to the implementation of the directive, and was further enriched by the feedback and insights of EASE members from across Europe.

At a time when the European sport sector is seeking to become more attractive, more professional and more inclusive, the new EU framework on pay transparency raises an important question: how can a principle designed for all sectors be effectively applied to a labour market as specific and diverse as sport?

A long-standing European principle, now backed by stronger enforcement

The principle of equal pay for women and men for equal work or work of equal value is not new. It is one of the European Union’s founding principles and is enshrined in Article 157 TFEU, which requires Member States to ensure equal pay between male and female workers. The EASE Talk recalls that “pay” covers not only the basic salary, but also any other consideration received directly or indirectly in respect of employment.

The EU Pay Transparency Directive 2023/970 is intended to strengthen the practical application of this principle. Its main ambition is clear: make pay-setting systems more transparent and provide stronger tools to identify, report and correct unjustified gender pay gaps.

In other words, this directive is not only about transparency as a value. It is about transparency as an enforcement mechanism.

What does the directive change in practice?

As highlighted during the EASE Talk, the directive introduces several binding provisions that are particularly relevant for employers. These include:

  • the right to information on pay before employment,
  • the prohibition on asking candidates about their salary history,
  • the right for workers to request information on average pay levels,
  • pay reporting obligations for employers above the relevant thresholds,
  • and joint pay assessments where there are signs of pay discrimination.

Taken together, these measures represent a major shift. Employers will increasingly need to justify remuneration systems with objective, comparable and gender-neutral criteria, rather than relying on informal habits, historic practices or opaque negotiation dynamics.

For many sectors, this already requires adjustment. For sport, it may require a deeper transformation.

Why sport needs a sector-specific reading

One of the strongest messages of this EASE Talk is that the sport sector cannot simply be treated like any other labour market.

Sport is made up of a very broad range of employers: clubs, federations, fitness operators, event organisers, local associations, social economy actors and high-performance organisations. Employment relationships are often hybrid, fragmented or strongly shaped by competition, performance and funding cycles. In that sense, the implementation of the directive in sport is not only a legal matter. It is also an organisational and cultural one.

The Talk identifies several concrete sectoral challenges.

1. Structural fragility and the “SME gap”

A large share of sport organisations are small or very small structures, often without dedicated HR departments or formal salary grids. In such contexts, compliance with new transparency and reporting obligations can become difficult, not because of resistance in principle, but because of a lack of technical capacity, internal tools and legal support. The EASE Talk warns that, without tailored assistance, many organisations in the sector may struggle to comply and may lose attractiveness as employers.

2. The complexity of remuneration in sport

Another major issue is the very definition of “pay” in the sport sector. As underlined in the presentation, remuneration in sport is often not limited to a fixed salary. It may include:

  • performance-related bonuses,
  • win bonuses,
  • image rights and external commercial revenues,
  • benefits in kind such as housing, vehicles or equipment.

These forms of remuneration can make comparison more difficult. They also raise practical questions: how should variable rewards be assessed? How can average pay levels be calculated in a way that is fair and meaningful? Where should the boundary be drawn between employment income and other related revenues?

These questions are especially sensitive in sport, where individual visibility, sporting results and commercial value often interact.

3. The difficulty of defining “work of equal value”

The directive also reinforces the importance of comparing roles on the basis of objective criteria. Yet this is particularly challenging in the sport sector, where job descriptions are not always formalised and where roles may be shaped around the profile, expertise or reputation of a given individual.

The EASE Talk points to a real risk here: where evaluation criteria remain subjective, unconscious bias can persist. Roles associated with leadership, technical authority or performance may be overvalued, while administrative, coordination or care-related functions may remain undervalued.

This is precisely why the notion of “work of equal value” is so important. It encourages employers to move beyond titles and habits, and instead assess jobs according to their actual content, responsibilities, skills, effort and working conditions.

From compliance to professionalisation

The central message emerging from this EASE Talk is that the directive should not be seen only as a constraint. For the sport sector, it can also be understood as a professionalisation opportunity.

More transparent and better-structured pay systems can help sport organisations:

  • strengthen trust within teams,
  • improve recruitment and retention,
  • reduce legal risk,
  • reinforce gender equality commitments,
  • and increase the credibility of the sector as an employer.

In a European labour market where sport organisations compete for talent with other sectors, clarity and fairness in remuneration are becoming strategic issues.

What kind of sectoral response is needed?

The Talk concludes that generic national toolkits will not always be enough for sport. What is needed is a response adapted to the reality of the sector, including:

  • gender-neutral job descriptions tailored to sport roles such as coaches, scouts, coordinators and support staff,
  • simple digital tools capable of tracking variable components of remuneration,
  • and managerial training to move from discretionary pay-setting to more objective and transparent practices.

This is where employer organisations, social partners and sectoral networks have a crucial role to play. They can help translate European legal obligations into practical guidance, support members in understanding what is expected, and encourage a model of sport employment that is not only competitive, but also fairer and more sustainable.