Note from project partners and learners: The case below is a composite scenario assembled from real RESM evidence (Skjold, NCAA, Sokol, UISP and the patterns observed across the 14 case studies). It is not a single real campaign.

Scenario: A local coalition for recognition of non-federated sport

The problem. A municipality only recognises federated clubs for public subsidies. Organisations working in health-sport, community recreation, and alternative models are excluded from funding, even though they serve a large part of the population.

The RESM data that makes the case:

• 88% of European sport practitioners operate outside the federation system. The majority is excluded.
• Czech Sokol sustains 160,000 members with 41% public grants. The alternative model is viable.
• NCAA in Nice receives 56% of its budget from the public sector and only 2% from federations. Public funding already supports non-federated sport elsewhere in Europe.

The coalition that formed:

1. A traditional federated club. Brings legitimacy within the system, 3,700 members.
2. A health-sport organisation . Brings innovation and intersectorial credibility, 2.1% ARS funding.
3. A historical movement . Brings 160 years of proof that alternatives work, 160,000 members.
4. A community group . Brings 75 volunteers and deep local roots.
5. An academic researcher. Brings evidence from the RESM Mapping Report and RESM Final Research Report.
6. A progressive local elected official. Brings political voice and access to the 28% municipal budget line.

Each actor’s argument:

• The traditional club: “Diversity strengthens the European model. Our members represent 25% of the city population, our partners have the potential to reach out to an extra 50%, together we are getting closer to 100%.”
• The innovator: “We reach people you do not. 45% of Europeans never exercise or play sport (Eurobarometer, 2022).”
• The historical movement: “160 years of European sport, outside any pyramid.”
• The community group: “75 volunteers serving 1,500 members. The invisible engine.”
• The researcher: “The data is clear: 0.2% solidarity from UEFA, 13% paid by clubs versus 2% received.”
• The elected official: “Our city should support all forms of organised physical activity, not just those with a federation label.”

The outcome. The municipality opened its subsidy criteria to include non-federated organisations that demonstrate the principles the ESM claims to defend (voluntary engagement, democratic governance) AND that address what the ESM has historically left aside (broad participation, inclusion, and community benefit).

Lessons from this coalition:

• Diversity was the strength. Mixing 14 case studies from 8 countries gave European legitimacy to a local demand.
• Evidence-based arguments won. The data points, 45%,  0.2%, and 13% versus 2% were difficult to dismiss.
• European framing mattered. “RESM is reality, not theory”, “Sports models should reflect who we are – not just who wins.” shifted the conversation from local politics to European values.