Before you meet the organisations, here is the core tension this tool explores. Tool 2 covered it in detail; this is a quick reminder.

The ESM says…	Reality shows…
A pyramid structure links grassroots to elite.	The relatively low level of sports club membership (12%, Source Eurobarometer 2022) raises questions about the representativeness of club-based structures in reflecting overall participation in sport and physical activity.
Solidarity redistributes wealth downward	Weak distribution for most: 0.2% (UEFA), 2% or less at club level.
Autonomous sport governs itself.	Increasing commercial and political pressure on governance.
Open competition rewards merit.	Competitive structures serve a minority of participants.
Values guide the system.	No agreed definition, no mechanism, no measurement.
Voluntarism sustains the base.	Declining volunteer numbers across Europe.

These are not failures of individual organisations. They are structural tensions within the model itself. The question is: what do they mean for organisations like yours?

Why this tension matters for advocacy

Different people read this tension differently, and where you stand shapes what you advocate for:

If you support the current model, the tensions are problems to solve through stronger implementation. The pyramid works in principle; solidarity needs reinforcing; autonomy needs protecting from commercial erosion. Your advocacy focuses on defending and strengthening existing structures.

If you see the model as incomplete, the tensions reveal that the framework needs updating, not abandoning. The six features still matter, but they need to accommodate the majority who practise outside the pyramid, the organisations that blend competition with health and inclusion, and the civil society movements that predate the model by a century. Your advocacy focuses on recognition and adaptation.

Both positions are legitimate. The RESM research provides evidence for both. What matters is that your advocacy is grounded in data, not assumption.

Common ground: Whatever your position, there is broad agreement on the fundamentals. Everyone agrees sport should serve society. Values like fairness, inclusion, and development are widely shared. The debate is about structures and mechanisms, not ultimate goals.

A realistic sport model puts people first: from community clubs to volunteers, from inclusion to sustainability.

This is precisely why the RESM project exists: to create the conditions for more Europeans to be active, every day, by strengthening knowledge on how sport is actually organised and funded, and by putting evidence-based advocacy tools in the hands of organisations that need them.

RESM does not tell sport organisations what to do. It equips them to understand the landscape, adapt to societal changes, and advocate for the conditions they need to grow participation.

The shared foundation is there.

The question is how to build on it.