Yifan Feng: Male, Master
Durham University, England
Yifan Feng, Fengyifan24nj@163.com
Author’s Profile：
|
Yifan Feng, was born in Nanjing, China, in 2002. From 2020 to 2024, he studied in Nanjing University and received his bachlor’s degree in 2024. From 2024 to 2025, he studied in Durham University and received his master’s degree in 2025. In 2024, he wrote an essay named A Study on Target Alienation in Chinese Football U23 Policy as an Example. And Analysed the target alienation issue in administrative management reflected in the process of formulation and execution of the Chinese Football U23 Policy and gave related improvement suggestions Engaged in literature collection, literature review and thesis writing. Then he explored the current status of the Chinese football youth training industry, proposed relevant development strategies, and completed thesis. |
Abstract
The equitable distribution of sports resources for disabled individuals remains a critical issue in European sports policy. While advancements in accessibility and inclusion have been made, significant disparities persist in funding, facility access, and policy implementation. This paper applies Rawls’ theory of justice to evaluate current policies and suggest improvements that ensure fairness in resource distribution for disabled athletes. Through ethnographic evidence and case studies from the UK, Netherlands, and Sweden, this study examines the real-world challenges faced by disabled athletes and the policy gaps that perpetuate these disparities. The analysis highlights the ethical implications of inequitable resource allocation and underscores the need for justice-based reforms to foster an inclusive sporting environment. By integrating political philosophy with empirical data, the paper advocates for a systematic restructuring of disability sports policies to enhance accessibility, funding distribution, and representation.
Key words: Equity, Physical activity, Disability
Content
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………… 3
- Introduction and Context…………………………………………………………… 3
- Presenting Ethnographic Evidence: Lived Experiences and Policy Gaps…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
2.1 Challenges Faced by Disabled Athletes in Grassroots Sports…….. 5
2.2 Policy Shortfalls and Intersectional Exclusion…………………………. 6
3.1 Rawls’ Theory of Justice……………………………………………………….. 7
4.1 United Kingdom…………………………………………………………………… 8
4.2 Netherlands…………………………………………………………………………. 9
4.3 Sweden…………………………………………………………………………….. 10
5.1 Assistive Technologies and Funding Priorities……………………….. 10
5.2 The Legacy of High-Profile Disability Sports Events……………….. 11
5.3 Injury and Health Concerns Among Disabled Athletes……………… 11
6.1 Prioritizing Grassroots Funding…………………………………………… 12
6.2 Standardizing Accessibility Frameworks……………………………….. 12
6.3 Strengthening Governance and Representation……………………… 13
6.4 Investing in Medical and Coaching Support…………………………… 13
Abstract
The equitable distribution of sports resources for disabled individuals remains a critical issue in European sports policy. While advancements in accessibility and inclusion have been made, significant disparities persist in funding, facility access, and policy implementation. This paper applies Rawls’ theory of justice to evaluate current policies and suggest improvements that ensure fairness in resource distribution for disabled athletes. Through ethnographic evidence and case studies from the UK, Netherlands, and Sweden, this study examines the real-world challenges faced by disabled athletes and the policy gaps that perpetuate these disparities. The analysis highlights the ethical implications of inequitable resource allocation and underscores the need for justice-based reforms to foster an inclusive sporting environment. By integrating political philosophy with empirical data, the paper advocates for a systematic restructuring of disability sports policies to enhance accessibility, funding distribution, and representation.
1. Introduction and Context
The inclusion of disabled individuals in mainstream sporting activities has steadily gained traction across Europe. Nevertheless, multiple studies indicate that a considerable gap remains between policy aspirations and the lived experiences of disabled athletes (Thomas and Guett, 2014; Walsh and Giulianotti, 2021). While elite-level disability sports—particularly within Paralympic frameworks—often benefit from specialized funding, grassroots initiatives remain under-resourced, resulting in limited community engagement and accessibility (DePauw and Gavron, 2005; UK Sport, 2021).
Recent strategic documents, such as the Union of Equality: Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021–2030 (European Commission, 2021), emphasize increasing sports participation for disabled individuals. However, heterogeneity in economic capacity, cultural perspectives on disability, and governmental priorities across European nations has led to inconsistent policy implementation (Thomas and Guett, 2014). Nations like the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands invest significantly in Paralympic programs, yet the translation of such investments to community-level sports remains problematic (Walsh and Giulianotti, 2021).
Research also indicates that achieving genuine inclusion requires not just policy directives but a reorientation of broader social and organizational structures surrounding sports (Kiuppis, 2018; Smith and Bundon, 2018). Indeed, the organizational culture of sports bodies and local clubs can influence how disability is perceived and whether resources are equitably allocated (Misener and Darcy, 2014; Townsend et al., 2018).
This paper uses Rawls’ (1971) theory of justice to examine the structural inequities in disability sports provision, applying the three core tenets—Equal Liberty Principle, Fair Equality of Opportunity, and the Difference Principle—as evaluative tools. By integrating qualitative evidence from grassroots disability sports contexts, policy analyses, and case studies from the UK, Netherlands, and Sweden, the paper explores how resource distribution can be improved to better serve disabled populations.
2. Presenting Ethnographic Evidence: Lived Experiences and Policy Gaps
2.1 Challenges Faced by Disabled Athletes in Grassroots Sports
Although the Paralympic movement has elevated the visibility of elite athletes with disabilities, multiple sources point out that community-level sports participation remains scarce (DePauw and Gavron, 2005; Thomas and Guett, 2014). Ethnographic fieldwork in local sports clubs in the UK reveals a consistent theme of inadequate funding for adaptive equipment, resulting in fewer training opportunities for aspiring athletes (Walsh and Giulianotti, 2021). According to Sport England surveys, disabled children and youth in many regions of the UK report significantly lower rates of extracurricular sports participation compared to their non-disabled peers (UK Sport, 2021).
In the Netherlands, local testimonies highlight the high personal costs of acquiring adaptive sports wheelchairs and prosthetics, which are frequently only partially subsidized (Government of the Netherlands, 2019). Similarly, volunteer-based community programs struggle to maintain specialized coaching staff who understand how to adapt training methods to different impairments, thus restricting athlete development (Thomas and Guett, 2014). Studies show little training in specific techniques for dealing with disabilities for coaches and, therefore, fewer skill development options (Macdonald et al., 2018).
2.2 Policy Shortfalls and Intersectional Exclusion
Policy measures towards enhancing accessibility have a failure to respond to diversity in terms of disability. For instance, intellectually disabled individuals have a double barrier in terms of social integration, expert coaching, and communications (Darcy and Dowse, 2013). In Sweden, governance at a localized level in terms of administration in sports has generated a lack of uniformity in funding at a localized level, with disabled female participants most at risk of double discrimination both in terms of gender and disability (Walsh and Giulianotti, 2021).
Moreover, the World Health Organization’s (2011) Report on the World Health Report identifies disabled persons with socioeconomic disadvantage that compounds such barriers, limiting their capacity to self-fund equipment and travel. All such factors, such as less access to work and social care, compound and have not yet been tackled through current policies (Fagher and Lexell, 2014). Studies have even proposed that the social construction of disability in sporting settings can enable and restrict access, depending on whether one sees disability as an aberration or a diversity in humans (Townsend et al., 2018; Richardson et al., 2017).
3. Political Philosophy Analysis: Applying Rawlsian Justice to Disability Sports
3.1 Rawls’ Theory of Justice
Rawls’ (1971) theory sets a framework for debating about funding, buildings, and access to them, for example, to be shared out. All individuals, according to the Equal Liberty Principle, must have an equal basic freedom, such as the freedom to enjoy sports on a non-discriminatory basis. Yet, ethnographic data present disabled sports participants being universally shut out of most mainstream facilities (Thomas and Guett, 2014; Radtke et al., 2016).
The Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle supposes that individuals with equivalent talent have an equivalent opportunity at success, a principle regularly compromised through funding and access barriers for disabled athletes (Walsh and Giulianotti, 2021). Finally, the Difference Principle supposes that policies must first benefit the most disadvantaged groups; when applied to disabled sports, it insists that community programs must receive preference over investments in elites (Rawls, 1971; Misener and Doherty, 2012).
3.2 Beyond Utilitarianism: The Significance of Rights-Based Approaches
Utilitarian frameworks can justify investing in disabled sports through an examination of society’s overall benefit, including a rise in public health, social integration, and community welfare (Wicker et al., 2012). However, purely outcome-focused models risk leaving those with greater support needs under-served. Conversely, a rights-based approach—aligned with liberal principles—treats the provision of sports resources for disabled individuals as a moral and political imperative, aligning closely with Rawls’ emphasis on protecting the most vulnerable groups (Rawls, 1971; Darcy and Dowse, 2013). Scholars argue that inclusion requires not just physical access but also a cultural shift in how disability is conceptualized, ensuring that athletes with disabilities can fully participate on their own terms (Sherrill, 1998; Smith and Bundon, 2018).
4. Case Studies: United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Sweden
4.1 United Kingdom
In the UK, policy documents emphasize high-performance achievement, particularly in the lead-up to major sporting events like the Paralympics (UK Sport, 2021). This focus has yielded record-breaking medal hauls but has also drawn criticism for neglecting the developmental pipeline and community-level programs (Thomas and Guett, 2014). Several local authorities face budgetary constraints, leading to closures or underfunding of inclusive sports clubs, contradicting Rawls’ Difference Principle (Walsh and Giulianotti, 2021).
Ethnographic interviews with grassroots coaches and parents reveal that many facilities remain inaccessible, lacking ramps, accessible changing rooms, and inclusive equipment (UK Sport, 2021). While recent schemes like the “Active Lives” program aim to increase overall sports participation, disabled individuals still encounter a lack of targeted, sustained support beyond elite pathways. Research indicates that while high-profile Paralympic success can inspire interest, sustained investment at community levels is necessary to translate interest into actual participation (Brown et al., 2013).
4.2 Netherlands
Despite its reputation for social welfare, the Netherlands has a fragmented approach to funding disability sports (Government of the Netherlands, 2019). National-level directives encourage inclusivity, yet the practical implementation often depends on local municipalities, leading to inconsistent levels of support (Thomas and Guett, 2014). This has resulted in disabled athletes relying on personal initiatives, charity, or crowdfunding to cover equipment costs (Walsh and Giulianotti, 2021).
Moreover, while the Netherlands hosts an array of sporting events promoting disability inclusion, critics argue that these events are largely “symbolic” if they do not lead to sustainable community-level infrastructure (Darcy and Dowse, 2013). Access to specialized coaches and adaptive technology remains limited outside major cities, underscoring disparities within the country’s disability sports ecosystem. Scholars have pointed out that community sport organizations need better connectivity between local and national bodies to ensure equitable resource allocation (Misener and Doherty, 2012; Misener and Darcy, 2014).
4.3 Sweden
Sweden is often lauded for its robust social policies, yet disability sports funding exhibits significant regional disparities (Fagher and Lexell, 2014). The Swedish Sports Confederation delegates authority to regional sports bodies, resulting in variability in facility quality and accessibility (Walsh and Giulianotti, 2021). While elite Paralympic programs receive comprehensive state-backed medical and training support, grassroots athletes often struggle with access to rehabilitation services, adaptive equipment, and professional coaching (DePauw and Gavron, 2005).
A study by Fagher and Lexell (2014) highlights that Swedish athletes with physical disabilities had higher incidences of preventable injuries due to limited specialized support at lower competitive levels. This evidence indicates a misalignment with Rawls’ (1971) call to prioritize resources for those who are most disadvantaged. Radtke et al. (2016) further point out that educational settings in Paralympic and disability sport in Sweden could be strengthened by integrative policies, linking school-based programs with local clubs.
5. Illustrative Examples and Their Policy Relevance
5.1 Assistive Technologies and Funding Priorities
Research on prosthetic technologies for para-athletics demonstrates how cutting-edge innovations can transform athletic performance (Purdue and Howe, 2012). Yet, high costs often mean that only elite athletes—those with access to national sponsorship or private funding—benefit fully from these technologies (Thomas and Guett, 2014). Grassroots participants, particularly from low-income backgrounds, remain marginalized, revealing an ethical tension between investing in elite breakthroughs and ensuring broad accessibility. Such disparities underscore the need for a more cohesive and equitable funding framework that balances innovation with inclusivity (Smith and Bundon, 2018).
5.2 The Legacy of High-Profile Disability Sports Events
Mega-events such as the Paralympic Games can significantly raise awareness about disability sports, but their legacy at the grassroots level is mixed. In the UK post-London 2012, the “inspirational” narrative did not translate evenly into systemic support for local clubs and training centers (Walsh and Giulianotti, 2021). Critics argue that media attention often fades quickly, leaving community sports initiatives with insufficient resources (Thomas and Guett, 2014). Brown et al. (2013) highlight that legacy outcomes are more robust when policy interventions systematically channel event-driven momentum into long-term funding and local infrastructure.
5.3 Injury and Health Concerns Among Disabled Athletes
Fagher and Lexell (2014) show that disabled athletes face higher risks of overuse injuries and require tailored medical support. While elite athletes in Northern European countries may have the advantage of specialized rehabilitation, those at community levels do not consistently receive similar care (DePauw and Gavron, 2005). This discrepancy not only hinders athlete development but also undermines broader participation by creating additional health risks and financial burdens. Richardson et al. (2017) further note that the stigma and logistical barriers in mainstream gyms can exacerbate health issues, highlighting a broader need for inclusive medical, coaching, and fitness environments.
6. Policy Recommendations
6.1 Prioritizing Grassroots Funding
A reorientation of funding priorities is essential to ensure the Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle (Rawls, 1971). Governments could mandate that a fixed proportion of their disability sports budget—e.g., 50–60%—be allocated to community-level initiatives (Thomas and Guett, 2014). This approach would provide more consistent support for local clubs, training facilities, and adaptive equipment, reducing the existing overemphasis on elite performance. Aligning local and national priorities can help reduce fragmentation and bolster program sustainability (Misener and Doherty, 2012).
6.2 Standardizing Accessibility Frameworks
An EU-wide standard of accessibility could be enforced to ensure uniform infrastructural support (European Commission, 2021). Such a measure would involve setting minimum requirements for ramps, accessible changing rooms, and adaptive sports equipment in every public sports facility (Walsh and Giulianotti, 2021). Tax incentives and subsidies could further encourage private enterprises to adopt and maintain these standards (Wicker et al., 2012; Kiuppis, 2018).
6.3 Strengthening Governance and Representation
To address inconsistencies in policy implementation, an overarching European body—or a strengthened mandate under existing structures—could monitor disability sports funding and access across member states (Thomas and Guett, 2014). Involving disabled athletes and advocacy groups in decision-making would help identify critical gaps, ensuring that resource allocation aligns with the real-world needs of diverse disability communities (Darcy and Dowse, 2013; Townsend et al., 2018). This participatory governance model can break down social and organizational barriers responsible for producing exclusion (Misener and Darcy, 2014).
6.4 Investing in Medical and Coaching Support
Finally, comprehensive medical and coaching care at all competitive levels is imperative. National governing boards have to collaborate with medical professionals in creating specialized rehabilitation and preventive care programs (Fagher and Lexell, 2014). Simultaneously, investing in developing coaches in programs with a focus on inclusive approaches can go a long distance in enhancing training standards for disabled athletes (Macdonald et al., 2018; DePauw and Gavron, 2005). Having a trained pool of coaches could mitigate the danger of injuries, nurture talent, and promote long-term activity (Townsend et al., 2018).
7. Conclusion
Ensuring equitable access for disabled persons to sport entails a sea change in funding arrangements and prioritization of policies. Paradoxically, Paralympic competition at an elite level has experienced improvements, but disabled persons’ grassroots programs have continued to suffer underfunding and lack of consideration. Paradoxes in funding and prioritization have characterized disabled persons’ access to sport, and Rawls’ theory of justice underlines the moral imperative for prioritization of such disadvantaged groups, for policies in support of fair distribution and opportunity for all, and for fair distribution of resources. Illustrative examples in the UK, Netherlands, and Sweden present a picture of persistent underfunding, infrastructure weaknesses, and representational voice, underlining the imperative for reform. Policymakers will have to implement a multi-faceted intervention with increased funding at a grassroots level, increased access in sporting infrastructure, and effective governance structures in order to counter such weaknesses. By following such reform through a lens of justice, European sports policies can become increasingly fair and inclusive, providing an opportunity for all disabled persons to access sport regardless of social and financial obstacles.
8. References
- Fadian, U.F.L., Hidayatullah, M.F., Riyadi, S. and Umar, F. (2024) ‘Development of Paralympic Sport 2008–2022 through Systematic Literature Review’, in International Joint Seminar on Education, Social Science and Applied Science. KnE Social Sciences, pp. 533–544. doi: 10.18502/kss.v9i19.16545.
- Darcy, S. and Dowse, L. (2013) ‘In search of a level playing field: the constraints and benefits of sport participation for people with intellectual disability’, Disability & Society, 28(3), pp. 393–407.
- DePauw, K.P. and Gavron, S.J. (2005) Disability Sport. 2nd edn. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
- European Commission (2021) Union of Equality: Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021–2030. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
- Fagher, K. and Lexell, J. (2014) ‘Sports-related injuries in athletes with disabilities’, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24(5), pp. e320–e331.
- Government of the Netherlands (2019) National Sports Agreement: Towards an Inclusive Sports Culture. The Hague: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport.
- Kiuppis, F. (2018) ‘Inclusion in sport: disability and participation’, Sport in Society, 21(1), pp. 4–21.
- Macdonald, D.J., Beck, K., Erickson, K. and Côté, J. (2018) ‘Understanding sources of knowledge for coaches of athletes with intellectual disabilities’, Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(1), pp. 119–126.
- Misener, K.E. and Doherty, A. (2012) ‘Connecting the community through sport club partnerships’, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 4(2), pp. 243–255. doi: 10.1080/19406940.2012.674962.
- Misener, L. and Darcy, S. (2014) ‘Managing disability sport: from athletes with disabilities to inclusive organisational perspectives’, Sport Management Review, 17(1), pp. 1–7.
- Purdue, D. and Howe, P.D. (2012) ‘“See the sport, not the disability”: exploring the Paralympic paradox’, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 4(2), pp. 189–205.
- McKay, C. (2013) ‘Paralympic school day: a disability awareness and education program’, Palaestra, 27(4).
- Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Richardson, E.V., Smith, B. and Papathomas, A. (2017) ‘Disability and the gym: experiences, barriers and facilitators of gym use for individuals with physical disabilities’, Disability and Rehabilitation, 39(19), pp. 1950–1957.
- Sherrill, C. (1998) Adapted Physical Activity, Recreation, and Sport: Crossdisciplinary and Lifespan. 5th edn. Dubuque, IA: WCB/McGraw-Hill.
- Smith, B. and Bundon, A. (2018) ‘Disability models: Explaining and understanding disability sport in different ways’, in Cunningham, G.B., Singer, J.F. and Aicher, T.J. (eds.) Diversity and Inclusion in Sport Organizations. New York: Routledge, pp. 169–186.
- Thomas, N. and Guett, M. (2014) ‘“Fragmented, complex and cumbersome”: a study of disability sport policy and provision in Europe’, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 6(3), pp. 401–421.
- Townsend, R.C., Huntley, T., Cushion, C.J. and Fitzgerald, H. (2018) ‘“It’s not about disability, I want to win as many matches as possible”: The social construction of disability in high performance coaching’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 53(1), pp. 44–59.
- UK Sport (2021) Annual Review and Funding Allocations 2021/22. London: UK Sport.
- Sport, disability and (inclusive) education: critical insights and understandings from the Playdagogy programme
- Wicker, P., Hallmann, K. and Breuer, C. (2012) ‘Micro and macro level determinants of sport participation’, Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 2(1), pp. 51–68.
- World Health Organization (2011) World Report on Disability. Geneva: WHO.