Why are UNESCO and its partners putting this global policy emphasis on sport and PE? Three reasons might be highlighted.
First, UNESCO view sport and PE as human rights in themselves. As Article 1 of the International Charter states, ‘The practice of physical education, physical activity and sport is a fundamental right for all.’
Second, sport, PE and other physical activities are increasingly used worldwide to promote young people’s personal and social development, such as in life skills, health education, social inclusion, and employability. UNESCO have taken on a central policy role in this global ‘sport for development’ sector.
Third, as the conference underlined, sport and PE represent ‘smart investments’ for government. They deliver positive social outcomes, such as better health or education outcomes. They also produce big financial returns: every US$1 invested in sport programmes can generate returns of US$3-$124, such as in reduced health and other welfare spending.
Yet much work remains to be done. For example, a recent landmark global report on PE, co-authored by UNESCO and Loughborough University, found that PE remains chronically underfunded, most PE teachers in primary schools lack specialist training, and 1 in 3 students with disabilities have no access to PE.
For UNESCO, the global policy solution is provided by Fit for Life, the organisation’s flagship ten-year worldwide initiative, launched in 2022, which seeks to boost global participation, policymaking, and investment in sport and PE.
UNESCO appreciate fully that financing Fit for Life – inspiring governments and other stakeholders to make ‘smart investments’ in sport and PE – is a major challenge. Hence, UNESCO are promoting an innovative programme funding model, known variously as ‘Outcomes-Based Funding’ or ‘Social Outcome Contracts’. The model involves sport programmes being initially financed by investors, such as a social investment fund; investors are only repaid (with interest), usually by government, if programmes meet their outcome targets (such as improved employment or training outcomes for participants). Appealingly, the model ensures outcomes are central to programme planning, governments only pay for successful programmes, and risks of failure are borne by investors.