Sport-Based Interventions as Non-Formal Education: Enabling the Education to Employment Transition for Young People

Abstract

Traditionally, qualifications and skills developed through formal learning have been the cornerstone of enhancing the employability of young people. However, the trajectory from education to work in contemporary society is far from linear; hence, the purpose of this paper is to evidence the potential benefits that non-formal educational practices, specifically involving sport-based interventions (SBIs), may offer to support the transition to employment. This paper presents data from 19 semi-structured interviews that were conducted with participants from organisations that either designed and/or delivered SBIs focused on enhancing employability or were from organisations that had experience of commissioning or funding sport-based employability projects. This paper outlines why SBIs may offer an effective alternative form of education to employment provision and also how SBIs enable young people to navigate non-linear education to employment transitions. Crucial to enhancing this transition is the provision of a supportive and inclusive non-formal educational environment where young people can acquire both propositional and procedural knowledge, whilst concurrently (re)connecting them with formal educational systems to expedite the transition to work. Importantly, this paper highlights that this concurrent blend of non-formal and formal education is particularly critical for young people without formal qualifications and who are furthest from an employment destination.

1. Introduction

Traditional perspectives on the transition between education and employment for young people have typically highlighted the importance of qualifications and skills, developed through formal learning, to enhance employability (McQuaid and Lindsay 2005; Chesters 2020; Brown et al. 2020). This central concern with credentialism as the foundation for employment, particularly in the post-industrial age (Gallagher 2022), is largely based upon an assumption that the trajectory from education to work is linear and straightforward. However, as Brown et al. (2020) have argued, as increasingly more young people remain longer in formal education, the relative value of qualifications as the basis for employment has reduced. Moreover, due to recent global economic conditions, which have led to a rise in austerity policies, youth transitions into employment have become increasingly complex, conditional, and risky, where the task of entering and sustaining involvement in the labour market is often precarious and intermittent (MacDonald et al. 2024; Purcell et al. 2017).

Against this backdrop, it is clear that the trajectory from education to work in contemporary society is far from linear, and that a reliance on formal education systems as the sole facilitator of this transition is insufficient (Basnet et al. 2020). A growing evidence-base has presented the potential benefits that non-formal educational practices may offer to complement formal education and support the transition to employment (Souto-Otero 2016; Johnson and Majewska 2022, 2024). While there is a lack of clarity on how non-formal education is defined (Johnson and Majewska 2024), conceptualisations typically refer to mediated, organised, and systematic educational activity that occurs outside of formal educational systems (Johnson and Majewska 2024; Coombs and Ahmed 1974). One specific type of non-formal education that has been widely implemented to tackle a number of health and societal inequalities, including supporting the transition from education to work, is interventions involving the intentional and instrumental use of sport and physical activity (Morgan et al. 2021; Moustakas et al. 2022; Burnett 2023; Morgan et al. 2023). The potential of sport-based interventions (SBIs) revolves around longstanding claims that participation can enable the development of a range of personal and social skills, such as teamwork, self-discipline, resilience, time management, self-efficacy, and self-esteem, which are deemed fundamental to obtaining and sustaining employment (Alarslan et al. 2024). Furthermore, SBIs have been shown to have particular salience in attempts to enhance employability among marginalised young people, who often are not engaged in formal education, and, as a result, are often furthest from an employment destination (Morgan et al. 2021).

However, while there is evidence to indicate that SBIs can contribute to efforts to support the transition to employment (Moustakas et al. 2022; Burnett 2023), less is known about the reasons why SBIs may offer an effective type of non-formal education and how, specifically, such interventions support employability (Morgan et al. 2023). In response, this paper will present empirical findings from a secondary analysis of qualitative data (Heaton 2019) drawn from a mixed methods research project which examined the employment issues that exist for young people in the post-COVID-19 moment. More specifically, this secondary analysis re-examines data collected via semi-structured interviews conducted with 19 representatives of organisations working within the sport and youth employability sector, to provide insight into how sport-based interventions uniquely help to address the challenges that young people face when negotiating the education to work transition. By drawing upon the testimonies of these representatives, this paper examines the following research questions: (i) How do SBIs offer an effective alternative form of education to employment provision? (ii) What aspects of SBIs enable young people to navigate the education to employment transition?

2. Sport as Non-Formal Education/Learning

When examining the correspondence between education and the transition to employment, debate often focuses on the blend of skills and knowledge that need to be acquired to enhance employability and/or secure employment (Souto-Otero 2016, 2021; Johnson and Majewska 2022). More broadly, this debate considers whether the purpose of education is to enable individuals to acquire propositional knowledge, which includes knowledge about facts or concepts that can be applied to different contexts, or procedural knowledge which includes the acquisition of specific competencies and techniques that are required to perform a specific task or activity (Rata 2019). Irrespective of the type of knowledge that is deemed to be necessary for employment, the way in which knowledge acquisition (learning) is organised is also open to debate (Johnson and Majewska 2024). In attempting to understand this dynamic, theoretical articulations of learning have typically been categorised into formal, informal, and non-formal learning.

Drawing upon the seminal work of Coombs and Ahmed (1974), formal and informal learning are positioned at opposite ends of a learning spectrum, broadly based upon how the learning is structured, where it takes place, and how it is recognised or measured. More precisely, formal learning is typically situated within dedicated, recognised learning institutions, within which pedagogical relationships are typically hierarchic in nature (Dovey and Fisher 2014). Furthermore, formal learning is often steered by structured, sequential learning objectives, which broadly relies on facilitating activities that are teacher-focused and result in the certification of knowledge (Johnson and Majewska 2022). Moreover, formal learning focuses heavily on the generation of propositional, rather than procedural knowledge, which strongly supports efforts to regulate, control, and standardise education while concurrently elevating the importance of certain forms of knowledge (Cain and Chapman 2014). In contrast, informal learning is not structured, can take place at any time, and, as such, knowledge is acquired through exposure to different environments and based upon personal experiences (Coombs and Ahmed 1974). Importantly, informal learning has less onus on the acquisition of propositional knowledge, offering potential to also acquire procedural knowledge (Johnson and Majewska 2022).

As a hybrid of these two, non-formal learning was originally defined by Coombs and Ahmed (1974, p. 8) as “any organized, systematic, educational activity carried on outside the framework of the formal system to provide selected types of learning”. Critically, this definition enables learning to take place within both organised, structured educational environments that can lead to formally recognised qualifications being acquired, or be situated outside of these narrow parameters, where experiential learning and “learning through life” (Lauder et al. 2006, p. 57) is equally permissible. Indeed, as Lauder et al. (2006) have noted, the acquisition and development of skills and knowledge for employment may not necessarily need to be assimilated through and within the formal education system, nor indeed, may formal sites for education be positioned as the optimal locale to enhance employability. In addition, in comparison to formal learning, non-formal learning is often autonomous, self-directed, and focuses more on learners’ needs and interests, all of which offers greater freedom and flexibility for learners to engage with the learning activity voluntarily (Werquin 2012; Gee 2015; Johnson and Majewska 2022).

However, non-formal learning has received criticism for its variability in practices, educator abilities, and overall educational quality (Latchem 2018; Johnson and Majewska 2024). Furthermore, since non-formal learning is less likely to be formally assessed, within a context that prioritises certified knowledge as the foundation for employment (Chesters 2020), non-formal learning may be problematic in facilitating the education to employment transition unless recognised qualifications are included in its design. That being said, competing research indicates the significant benefits of non-formal learning, highlighting its suitability to engage those not currently served by formal (statutory) education as well as specific groups of young people who have become marginalised from mainstream education (Gee 2015). Moreover, evidence exists to outline how non-formal learning might act as a ‘missing link’ to connect education and employment (Souto-Otero 2016, 2021; Werquin 2012; Ott and Dicke 2021), especially for young people whose socio-economic circumstances restrict access to the employment market (Johnson and Majewska 2022), and that experiential knowledge obtained within community settings offers clear potential to contribute to contemporary employment transitions.

One specific type of community-based, non-formal education that has long been utilised as a complementary and wide-ranging solution to enhance employability and enable the transition to employment is sport and physical activity (Burnett 2022, 2023; Morgan et al. 2023; Coalter 2007; Spaaij et al. 2013; Morgan et al. 2020). Indeed, where sport and physical activity is utilised purposely and intentionally as a tool for personal and social development—often termed ‘sport plus’ (Coalter 2007)—it has proved particularly effective in providing meaningful and sustainable work opportunities and support for non-linear or non-traditional employment transitions (Morgan et al. 2023). While academic evidence indicates the clear potential of SBIs to contribute to youth employment solutions (Coalter et al. 2020; Cunningham et al. 2020; Hermens et al. 2017), their integration into government policy as a response to youth employment challenges are, at best, typically positioned as a subsidiary to broader policy intentions (Morgan et al. 2023). However, in general, SBIs have the most value as a type of non-formal education in providing an environment where skills and knowledge can be acquired that have relevance for, and are transferable to, employment settings (see ter Harmsel-Nieuwenhuis et al. 2022, for a review).

3. Sport-Based Interventions as an Enabler of the Education to Employment Transition

It is important to note that SBIs (and participation in sport more broadly) are far from a panacea to address issues around employment and supporting the education to work transition. Echoing longstanding criticisms that have elevated SBIs to an almost evangelical or mythopoeic status (see Coalter 2007; Giulianotti et al. 2019), it is only when certain conditions exist within an SBI that the potential for non-formal learning may arise. While research has been unsuccessful in capturing a consensus and defining the conditions necessary within an SBI to operate as a type of non-formal education, in general, factors related to (i) the individuals participating in the SBI, (ii) the experience and skill of the staff delivering it, (iii) the educational environment that is created, and (iv) the deployment of a systematic approach to programme design, have all been proposed as critical to optimising the use of SBIs to support employability and employment transitions (see Spaaij et al. 2013; Morgan et al. 2020; Hermens et al. 2017; ter Harmsel-Nieuwenhuis et al. 2022; Commers et al. 2022; Bush et al. 2025).

A more extensive framework to understand the connection between participation in an SBI and enhanced employability is provided by Coalter et al. (2020). These authors proposed a programme theory which introduces a series of five mechanisms that need to be present to optimise the intentional and instrumental use of sport to support youth employability. These include the necessity to (i) utilise sport as a ‘hook’ for participation and provide a platform for engagement in more specific activities to enhance employability; (ii) construct meaningful interpersonal relationships between SBI participants and delivery providers/educators; (iii) ensure an individualised approach to the design of interventions; (iv) include tangible, ‘plus sport’ activities, such as validated qualifications, workplace experience, and workshops which prepare participants to negotiate and enter the employment market; and (v) provide specific post-intervention support for participants who have graduated from the intervention and/or into employment destinations.

Across the various components of Coalter et al.’s (2020) programme theory, there is mounting evidence supporting the critical role practitioners play in eliciting the educational value of sport both as a device to learn through and a context to situate learning in. For example, Morgan and Bush (2016) have demonstrated the pivotal function that community-based coaches play in re-engaging young people with formal education through sport. The findings from their study highlight the transformative leadership qualities that distinguish coaches and coaching practice that utilise sport effectively in this way (e.g., community consciousness, critical self-awareness, persistence of effort, and empathy). More recently, Bush et al. (2025) have provided further insights into the antecedents to forming the type of care and growth-orientated relationships between coaches and participants that foster success within SBIs. Based on data collected from individuals with the responsibility for employing coaches to work with young people, the notion of ‘lived expertise’ coupled with a shared sense of locality and the investment of time were considered core ingredients to establishing influential coach–participant relationships. Indeed, these findings align with Bailey’s (2018) more general observation that the multiple benefits claimed for sport (whether in a formal, informal or non-formal educational setting) are not realised automatically or in a decontextualised space. Rather, the benefits of sport are conditional on several contextual factors with the sports coach, youth mentor or teacher acting as an essential bridge between the young person and the developmental outcomes of the sport-based experience.

Nevertheless, despite significant evidence to support the utilisation of SBIs as a type of non-formal education (see Morgan et al. 2021; Moustakas et al. 2022; Burnett 2022, 2023; Alarslan et al. 2024), more critical literature has noted how, within an employment context, SBIs are often limited in their effectiveness, and typically advantage participants who possess some level of prior educational competence and/or are intrinsically motivated to engage with all aspects of the intervention (Spaaij et al. 2013; Morgan et al. 2020; Coalter et al. 2020; Hartmann 2016), which is often contradictory to the type of disadvantaged or underserved individuals that are commonly targeted by such interventions (Hartmann 2016). In addition, sport-based employment interventions have been criticised for their apparent lack of transferability, where the skills and attributes developed within the SBI often do not translate directly to the employment domain (Commers et al. 2022; Morgan 2024). Finally, Spaaij et al. (2013) observed that the way in which sport-based employment interventions are typically measured and evaluated promotes a narrow focus on tangible results, such as ‘getting young people into jobs’, rather than a concern with longer-term, sustainable aims which are likely to lead to more secure, meaningful, and better paid employment for participants (see also Moustakas et al. 2022; Burnett 2023; Commers et al. 2022).

Clearly, as Morgan et al. (2023) observed, more evidence is required to advocate for why SBIs may be effective in supporting youth employability, and how, specifically, they may complement or enhance efforts within formal education to facilitate the transition from education to employment, both of which the current paper seeks to address.

4. Methods

The empirical findings presented in this article are a secondary analysis of qualitative data obtained from a ‘parent’ mixed methods study which sought to investigate the employment challenges that have been created or exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the contribution that the sport-for-development sector can make in relation to enhancing employability and employment opportunities among young people. Qualitative secondary analysis (QSA) is a recognised research methodology that re-purposes existing qualitative data to either investigate new questions or affirm the findings of previous work (Heaton 2008, 2019; Silva 2007; Martinelli et al. 2023). QSA was utilised due to the flexible and open-ended nature of the interviews that were conducted during the parent study that resulted in wide-ranging dialogue which raised unanticipated discussions about the broader purposes of SBIs in support of young people’s pathways to employment (Martinelli et al. 2023). It was evident during the secondary analysis of the qualitative data from the parent study that participants provided a clear perspective on the way in which SBIs may offer an effective type of non-formal education and how, specifically, such interventions support the education to work transition.

Framed by interpretivist paradigmatic assumptions, the qualitative component of the parent study comprised 19 semi-structured interviews. While 19 semi-structured interviews were conducted, in total, 21 participants engaged in the research. For two organisations, the interview engaged two separate participants/representatives of that organisation. Following University ethical approval (Institutional Reference Number: EP 20/21 112), the interviews were conducted online between January and March 2022, and lasted between 36 and 81 min (mean of 50 min). Interviews were deployed as an appropriate method of generating meaningful data through open-ended, interpersonal dialogue (Amis 2005) with the specific intention of eliciting the subjective interpretations and personal experiences of representatives from a variety of organisations (both sport-based and non-sport) connected with the youth employability sector.

Interview participants for the parent study were sampled purposefully from across a network of organisations that either designed and/or delivered sport-based interventions focused on enhancing employability, or from organisations concerned with youth employability that had experience of commissioning or funding sport-based projects (see

Table 1. Study participants.

Pseudonym	Role	Description of Organisation
Jane	National Operations Manager	Sport-based charitable trust
Andy	Head of Education and Employability	Sport-based charitable trust
Emma	Head of Foundation	Charitable foundation that funds sport-based projects
Ted	Chief Executive Officer	Sport and employability charity
Meera	Director of Design and Impact	Sport-based charity
Steve	Head of Education	Social enterprise focused on tackling youth unemployment
Emily	National Partnership Manager	Sport-based apprenticeship charity
Mark	Sport policy manager	Organisation overseeing further education in England
Hayley	National Director	Sport-based youth development charity
Tony	Head of Programmes	Youth and disability sports charity
Gareth	Sports Development Manager	Youth development charity
Julie	Chief Executive Officer	Sport-based youth charity
Rohan	Leadership Team	Youth development charity
Sally	Director of Innovation	Organisation offering qualifications in sport and leadership
Kayla	Programme Delivery Manager	Sport-based charitable trust
Brendan	Founder	Youth employment social enterprise
Amanda	Chief Executive Officer	Training and employment charity for young people
Jacqui	Head of Programmes	Youth volunteering and employment charity
James	Education Officer	Sport-based charitable foundation
Eleanor	Youth Advisor	Sport-for-development organisation
Salman	Youth Advisor	Sport-for-development organisation

). This sample provided a blend of perspectives and ‘information rich’ cases (Patton 2015), which was further diversified by recruiting interviewees from multiple geographic locations and respondents who worked in either ‘strategic’ and/or ‘frontline delivery’ roles. Interview discussion topics varied between participants, but a semi-structured interview guide was devised to direct dialogue and allow sufficient flexibility for salient discussion topics to emerge during each interview (Kvale 2007). The interview guide for the parent study contained a series of open-ended questions organised to explore, in detail, (i) the unique contribution of sport to enhancing youth employability compared to other non-formal education programmes; (ii) how sport-based projects might build qualities and attributes that are pivotal to enhanced employability; (iii) particular issues in transference between the skills developed through sport-based interventions and those required for employment both ‘in’ sport and within broader sectors/industries; and (iv) the challenges experienced by young people as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were audio-recorded using a digital dictaphone and transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription provider.

All interview transcripts from the parent study were subject to QSA. By drawing specifically on the views and perceptions of staff and representatives of organisations that deliver SBIs, the research questions which directed the re-analysis of the parent dataset were (i) how do SBIs offer an effective alternative form of education to employment provision and (ii) what aspects of SBIs enable young people to navigate the education to employment transition. The re-analysis was conducted manually by all three authors, and consisted of four stages, involving open, axial, and selective coding (Charmaz 2014). Consequently, transcripts were read in full to gain an overview of the data, before being individually coded and indexed to capture the different aspects of participant experience (see

Table 2. Summary of interlocking themes and data categories.

Theme	Core-Category	Category	Sub-Category
Building a bridge to employment	Developing career readiness	Preparing the person	Physical health
			Mental health
			Lifestyle habits
			Inspiration
			Motivation
	Addressing barriers to employment	Fragmented home life
		Worklessness
		Socio-economic conditions of employment
		Disconnected young people
		Transient career support (‘pillar to post’)
	Supporting incremental transitions	Rebuilding trust
		Reconnecting with formal systems
		Navigating employment systems
		Connecting with government initiatives
		Offering continuity
Enablers to employment	Taking a long-term, holistic approach	Transferrable skills for career readiness	Working with others
			Organisation
			Time management
		Formal qualifications
		Personal qualities	Work ethic
			Confidence
			Resilience
			Aspiration
		Mentorship	Quality interpersonal relationships
			Sustained involvement
	Creating an empowering social climate	Supportive
		Inclusive
		Structured
		Consistent
		Safe
	Qualities of delivery personnel	Relatable	Lived experience
			Learned experience
		Likeable
		Attentive
		Empathetic

). These experiences were then clustered and inductively rationalised into several overarching topics (sub-categories and core categories), which were subsequently organised deductively into formal generic themes. This iterative aspect of the data analysis process involved, first, identifying broader patterns of shared meaning across the data set, and then, reviewing these patterns by checking that they were representative of the overall data and cohered with the study’s research questions (Xu and Zammit 2020).

5. Building a Bridge: The Use of SBIs as an Alternative Form of Education to Employment Provision

In presenting the case for the intentional use of sport as a means to enable access into employment, all respondents were able to articulate how sport can offer a valuable alternative as a mechanism to support the acquisition of employability skills (Morgan et al. 2023; Alarslan et al. 2024; Hermens et al. 2017). More specifically, and relative to more formal types of education and training, respondents outlined how SBIs were often an attractive proposition for socially vulnerable or disadvantaged young people that faced significant barriers to obtaining employment (ter Harmsel-Nieuwenhuis et al. 2022). Predominantly, data revealed that SBIs acted as an effective method to (re-)engage young people who had become disconnected from the traditional (formal) systems of education and training that offered a more conventional foundation for access into employment (Chesters 2020). Indeed, several respondents alluded to the challenging socio-economic conditions that many of their programme participants experienced, and how this alone presented a major barrier within the education to employment transition. Reflecting many similar testimonies, Jane, the National Operations Manager of a football-based charitable trust, provided insight into the work-related challenges that many of their programme participants faced. Jane explained,

[Most] have a poor home environment, in terms of worklessness … not being surrounded by people who have a routine of work. Maybe being the only one in the house having to get up and go to work at 9 o’clock. All of those things can be a real barrier … A big issue for a lot of our participants over the last 12 months has been living arrangements. A significant number would be living in supported housing arrangements, hostels, sofa-surfing, so on the cusp of homelessness.

While socio-economic conditions often forced young people (willingly or otherwise) to disengage with formal systems that could support them into employment, there was evidence to suggest that SBIs could offer a more gradual transition into employment. In turn, this more progressive and incremental approach helped to address one of the major criticisms of formal youth employment reintegration strategies, which are often narrowly focused on ‘getting a job’ as an end outcome as opposed to developing ‘work readiness’ (Maguire 2021). One such example came from an organisation which offers short-term work experience opportunities for young people classified as NEET (not in education, employment or training) within construction and refurbishment projects undertaken in community sports clubs. Jacqui, the Head of Programmes explained,

… by the nature of their backgrounds, [these young people] are not ready to just go straight into a job … so I think we sort of recognise that there’s quite a divide between trying to get somebody who’s NEET into employment off the back of a three or four-day experience of working with us. So, I think [we’ve] recognised that there’s a bit of a bridge that needs to be built between being on [our] project to being employment ready.

Extending the metaphor of ‘bridge building’, other respondents were able to outline how sport-based interventions had strong potential to facilitate a gradual reintegration into employment and support them in navigating the often fraught employment landscape that they encountered. For example, Meera, the Director of Design and Impact at a sport-based charity, indicated that SBIs had a role to play in (re-)building trust and reconnection with the formal employment systems that had often “let down” participants of their programmes. Meera continued,

… the ‘system’ has failed a lot of these young people. We don’t want to put them [straight] back in that system. We want to get them ready, for themselves first, get them ready for their community second, and get them ready to join the system third. And it works in that way.

An important finding that corresponded with the alternative role that sport could play in supporting youth employment was the broader impact that being physically active could have on supporting work readiness, not least in supporting individual health and wellbeing (Morgan 2024). For example, Emma, the head of a charitable foundation that funds sport-based projects outlined how improving physical and mental health was pivotal when beginning the ‘journey’ to employment and was a clear attraction for their support of SBIs. Emma explained,

… getting young people back into sport and getting them active is having massive impacts as well. So, you know, young people giving up smoking or drug use, you know, just fitness levels increasing … But actually, those sorts of lifestyle improvements also help if somebody is trying to move forwards with their lives and get into work.

In addition to sport-based organisations offering a foundation for young people to (re)commence their employment journeys, there was also evidence that SBIs had clear potential to reconnect these individuals with formal employment systems. For example, when speaking about one of the organisations that they funded, Emma revealed,

I think that quite an important part of [sport and physical activity] is helping young people to navigate [employment] systems, which can be not the most welcoming or easiest to navigate. One organisation [that we fund] did some training with young people around how to navigate financial systems … like helping young people to get bank accounts when they don’t have bank accounts. You know, getting young people to engage with the Job Centre. I mean certainly, to be brutally honest, they [programme participants] wouldn’t be engaging with the Job Centre before they come onto the [sport-based] programme.

Not surprisingly, as many sport-based organisations had been instrumental in reconnecting young people with formal systems, there were several examples of organisations continuing to support these individuals within and through them. Typically, this consisted of support to engage with recognised and intentional active labour market policies (ALMPs) and ‘vanguard’ initiatives (Maguire 2021), which, consequently, often provided a key source of funding for sport-based organisations. There was also evidence that sport organisations offered value as a partner to complement formal efforts by governments to enhance employability and pathways into work (Moustakas et al. 2022; Morgan et al. 2023). In some cases, the support offered was formal in nature, where the sport organisation acted as an identified and trusted partner in supporting government employment schemes. For example, Jane, the National Operations Manager of a football-based charitable trust, explained how they supported local Job Centre provision and that several professional football clubs across England hosted Youth Hubs. Youth Hubs are part of the UK Government’s efforts to support young people aged 16–24 in addressing barriers to work. Youth Hubs are located in external partner premises (as opposed to within Job Centres) and help young people to access opportunities for education, employment, or training:

… some of [our clubs] had never been in their local Job Centre because they don’t necessarily do employability programmes. [But now] we’ve got a lot of our football clubs that offer the Youth Hubs … that were launched to tackle youth unemployment as a result of the pandemic. So, South Yorks United [pseudonym] is a youth hub; they have the DWP [Department of Work and Pensions] work coaches based in the club, and the young people go there, rather than the local DWP office.

Similarly, Ted, the Chief Executive of a sport and employability charity, explained how they had been active partners in supporting caseloads in local Job Centres:

What we know is, when we [consulted] our young people, they wanted one person and one contact to support them. They really felt that they were pulled from pillar to post; different training providers, job centres, job coaches, different people … We have key relationships with different job centres across the region, and actually a lot of our mentors … often they might spend an entire day based at a job centre. So, there’s that relationship with them, they know what we do. It’s kind of a win-win. They’ve [Job Centre staff] got to get their young people off their caseloads, and we can support by taking them onto our caseloads.

This testimony, and others like it, raised an important question about the purpose of employment programmes which use sport and physical activity in an instrumental manner. Specifically, this related to whether the focus of SBIs should be on assisting ‘job readiness’ or developing ‘career readiness’ (Maguire 2021). Respondents spoke about the preoccupation of many employment-focused interventions to progress participants into a job as a central, or often sole, outcome. However, there was evidence to suggest that this narrow outcome measure was often counterproductive to enabling longer-term or sustained employment (Purcell et al. 2017; Spaaij et al. 2013) and was often unachievable for individuals, like the ones typically engaged by SBIs, who were furthest from employment. For example, Jane, the National Operations Manager of a football-based charitable trust, articulated the problems associated with a sole concern on job readiness:

… we’ve run a number of ‘Introduction to’ courses and a lot of those ‘intro to’ quals [qualifications] were in things such as warehousing and distributing, because they wanted something that they could go to, do their eight hours, get paid and leave … We felt that traineeships were very much qualification based, they were very much kind of like, “You do this, you do this, you do your work placement, you get a job or an apprenticeship. Bye bye”. We are keen to get employers that can offer young people on our programmes career pathways, and not just a job for now. So, I think it’s really about finding the platform for participants to then move on with their career.

Jane’s testimony encapsulated a consensus view that there is a need for sport organisations to move the focus away from simple job readiness towards preparing participants of their interventions for a defined, meaningful career. Two examples captured the essence of the respondents’ views on this topic:

[We produce] job-ready young people, and they’ve gone through our intensive programme, they’ve really improved their life skills … [but] I also think it’s making sure that the jobs are meaningful jobs. There’s an issue with zero-hour contracts, sessional, seasonal roles. Underemployment is a big issue … and we don’t want to contribute to that, so we try and make sure it’s meaningful work (Ted, Chief Executive of a sport and employability charity).

… we believe that all young people should be excited and inspired about their futures, particularly around actually, what job, or more important, what career. Because I think a job is the day-to-day, a career, that’s where that energy and fire should come from. (Gareth, sports development manager, youth development charity).

While the above discussion outlines the potential benefits of SBIs and why sport-based organisations can offer an alternative (non-formal) means to (re)connect education to employment pathways, perhaps of more importance is how the content and delivery of SBIs may explicitly enable young people to transition smoothly and effectively between education and employment. The next section of this discussion addresses this critical aspect of employment-focused sport-based programmes.

6. Enabling the Education to Employment Transition via Sport-Based Interventions

As noted, developing appropriate skills for employment has been central to employment-focused policy for several decades (McQuaid and Lindsay 2005; Maguire 2021) and is recognised as a key feature within the education to employment transition. This was reflected appreciably within the data with several respondents outlining the value in using sport and physical activity interventions to enhance the skills needed by an individual to make them more employable (Alarslan et al. 2024; Coalter et al. 2020; Hermens et al. 2017). Analysis revealed that many of the respondents offered formal, recognised qualifications within their programming or directed young people towards these through local providers. Echoing the majority of respondents, one respondent (Hayley, a Director of a national sport-based youth development charity) provided insight into the broad range of qualifications and courses that their organisation offered to enhance employability within the sport sector:

… [we have a range of courses] that was about taking that first step into employment in our sector … We’ve got about 36 workshops which are mainly focused on either building your skills, understanding and working with young people, or building your skills at using sport [instrumentally].

While such a finding would suggest that sport organisations are no different in this respect to ‘traditional’ providers of education and training for employment, a clear distinction was made from organisations who worked specifically with populations who face specific barriers to employment or those furthest from an employment destination. For example, Tony, the Head of Programmes at a youth and disability sports charity, outlined how his organisation sought to adopt a longer-term approach to employment training, which accentuated the acquisition of “baseline skills for employment” for individuals who had disengaged with formal education. He continued,

When we talk about employability, I think people instantly think of employment. For us, we’ve done quite a bit of work on trying to change how that’s interpreted to actually mean skills development and preparing people to have a better opportunity later on in life for employment.

A further diversion from traditional models of education to employment was provided in testimony that outlined the potential for SBIs to develop a broader range of (transferable) skills (Moustakas et al. 2022; Alarslan et al. 2024) as opposed to simply being a provider of qualifications. This was particularly evident within programmes that used sport and physical activity as a tool for engagement but were focused on facilitating employment into sectors beyond the sport industry. For example, Amanda, the Chief Executive Officer of a training and employment charity for young people, explained how communication with employers was central to their planning on what skills their SBIs should promote. She explained,

… you need to listen to them [employers] in terms of what are the skills that they [young people] need? So, when [a builder’s merchants] came in, they said: “You know, forget about the qualifications, what we need is young people that are going to turn up on time, and who are going to have the willingness to, you know, push themselves”. You know, it’s your work ethic, really.

Further advocacy for the added value that SBIs could offer was provided by Gareth, a sports development manager at a youth development charity. He expressed how, through SBIs, qualities such as resilience, confidence, and optimism could be acquired and developed which were equally important to enhance employability (Morgan 2018). Gareth explained,

I think there’s other important bits that sport programmes can build around the sort of the skills [that are required for employment] and really embedding those, and that young people are resilient, that they have aspirations, they’re confident, they can do challenge … rather than just “is your CV up to date?”

However, data also revealed how the added value that SBIs could offer in enabling the transition from education to employment was not solely an outcome of the content of intervention but was reflective of additional mechanisms that were intentionally contained within them (Coalter et al. 2020). Uppermost within these mechanisms was the propensity of SBIs to offer a safe, supportive, and inclusive social climate for the development of young people. Data illustrated a variety of examples of the types of social climates that were created within interventions; however, there was consensus that the most critical element of an effective social climate was the quality of interaction between delivery staff and the participants of their interventions (Bush et al. 2025). Reflecting this consensus and outlining the most critical aspect of their delivery, Tony, Head of Programmes at a youth and disability sports charity acknowledged,

Definitely, definitely, the people [delivery staff]. That’s almost, I’d say second to none. Our projects are somewhat a reflection of that [programme] lead, and not the level of work that they put in.

Several respondents highlighted the necessity to provide beneficiaries with a consistent environment throughout their engagement with an SBI, and again, delivery staff were fundamental to achieving this through an effective mentoring approach (Morgan et al. 2023; Bush et al. 2025). Emily, the National Partnership Manager for a sport-based apprenticeship charity, explained how their mentors, which they called ‘Learning Coaches’, were central to ensuring that young people remained engaged with the apprenticeship opportunities being offered. She stated,

… more than anything, it’s about their [mentor’s] ability to just listen, you know, to be able to understand the needs of each young person and work with them to work through challenges … For a lot of our young people, I think they kind of get to a point where they probably question whether the apprenticeship is still the right option for them. Often there are roles that come up that are probably better paid, certainly on an hourly basis, than an apprenticeship would be … Our best Learning Coaches are able to help our young people see that bigger picture and support them on a longer-term journey…

The importance of mentoring relationships as part of an effective social climate was highlighted as particularly relevant to addressing issues of employment inequalities and supporting young people who faced multiple socio-demographic barriers to employment (ter Harmsel-Nieuwenhuis et al. 2022). Speaking on behalf of the participants of their programmes, all of whom possessed a disability, Tony explained,

[Mentoring] is even more important when you’re talking about people with disabilities … that environment’s really, really, really key and to some extent, as well, having some structure, having some structure and some consistency. Lots of these young people don’t have structure and consistency and that’s partly why they don’t have the same opportunities as well.

Various perspectives were offered on the qualities that a mentor within a sport-based employability intervention should possess, with much of the discussion focused on the importance of lived experience (Morgan 2024; Spaaij and Jeanes 2013). While there was general agreement that an element of lived experience was important to enable mentors to be relatable to the young people they supported, many recognised this was not the sole ‘qualification’ for being an effective mentor and that ‘learned’ or ‘qualified’ experience through training (Morgan 2024; Stelter et al. 2020; Stoeger et al. 2021; De Gioannis et al. 2023) was equally important in understanding how best to support and facilitate opportunities for young people. Reflecting this consensus, Ted, Chief Executive Officer at a sport and employability charity explained,

We want our mentors first and foremost to be relatable to young people. They’ve got to speak to them at their level … Obviously it helps if there’s a strong level of lived experience there as well, which we know there is in our mentoring group, [but] they’ve got to get on with the young people; the young person [has] got to like them, otherwise it’s not going to work.

That said, some respondents, particularly those which engaged sport organisations to deliver elements of their employability programmes, disclosed that, in their experience, sport organisations sometimes overlooked the need for the sport-based activity to enhance employment and employability skills, instead focusing purely on the ‘sport’ aspects of their delivery. Capturing this point, Amanda, Chief Executive Officer of a training and employment charity for young people revealed,

I’ve seen some brilliant sport-facilitated sessions, but I always wish they’d go a little bit further. Because I think you’ve got those young people, you know, you’ve got those relationships, [and] actually afterwards a conversation with those young people about what they plan to do, what are their goals, where do they see themselves, that’s the bit that I think sometimes can get missed.

A final benefit, that corresponded with the strong interpersonal relationships that were developed between the delivery staff of SBIs, was the propensity of sport organisations to provide ongoing support and mentoring for participants who had graduated from an education or training programme and progressed into an employment destination (Coalter et al. 2020). While the extent to which sport organisations offered such support was varied or inconsistent, within the interventions that were analysed, several organisations appreciated the importance of this mechanism within their programme design and recognised many of the longer-term perils associated with sustaining young people in employment (Purcell et al. 2017; Maguire 2021). For example, Emily, the National Partnership Manager for a sport-based apprenticeship charity, outlined how her organisation was developing a dedicated range of activities specifically designed to maintain engagement with graduates of their apprenticeship programmes. Emily explained,

… we’re looking at building more formalised support for our graduates … to sort of develop and invest in, [and] sustain that employment opportunity for young people … just to continue to support them and work with them. Once they finish their apprenticeship we can lose sight of them quite quickly, so the first step, really, is to continue to engage them in things like our development weeks [and] make sure that they are aware they can still access [other] opportunities around that long-term employability piece…

Along similar lines, Jane, the National Operations Manager of a football-based charitable trust, provided a more detailed example of the ongoing mentoring support that was provided by her organisation, highlighting attempts to address issues related to the precarity of youth employment initiatives, which can often be successful in the short term but lack sustainability in the longer term (MacDonald and Giazitzoglu 2019). Outlining the efforts undertaken to avoid the often-cyclical nature of youth unemployment, Jane continued,

… we were conscious that for a lot of training providers people come on the programme, and then there’s a cliff edge when it finishes … So, we’ve actually built into a lot of our projects an eight-week post-programme mentoring … just so that there isn’t that cliff edge, so they still know they’ve got somebody that they can turn to … For a lot of beneficiaries, they come from backgrounds where maybe they haven’t got that support, and that’s why there in the situation or position where they’re in. It’s really dangerous to have that, and suddenly they know what it’s like to be supported … so we try to cut that sort of transactional kind of relationship out of the mix, because short-term it might be okay, but actually it doesn’t really do much for anybody.

While SBIs may, on the surface at least, appear to be yet another provider of education and training for employability with intention to support the education to work transition, our findings demonstrate how sport-based employability interventions can offer an attractive (and potentially cost-effective) method to engage young people. Moreover, this is especially the case for young people who have disengaged from formal education or are furthest from an employment destination, to support their preparedness for work (Morgan et al. 2023; Commers et al. 2022). Crucially, the potential for sport organisations to provide meaningful, relatable, and supportive interpersonal interactions between programme participants and staff (Bush et al. 2025; Morgan and Parker 2017), both during the SBI itself and as an on-going concern post-intervention, in addition to the traditional model of delivering training and qualifications for employment, offers a clear point of distinction between SBIs and typical approaches to support the education to employment transition.

7. Conclusions

Sport-based interventions are widely employed as a type of non-formal education to address a plethora of health and social challenges, including supporting young people to navigate the transition from education to work. While a growing body of academic evidence has substantiated the potential for sport to be utilised in this instrumental manner (see Moustakas et al. 2022; Burnett 2023; Alarslan et al. 2024; ter Harmsel-Nieuwenhuis et al. 2022), a consensus on the reasons why SBIs may offer an effective type of non-formal education and how, specifically, such interventions support employability, is less clear (Morgan et al. 2023). This paper has presented empirical evidence to offer a contribution to obtaining more clarity on this existing knowledge gap, highlighting how SBIs can offer an alternative (not to mention, cost-effective) method to support youth employment transitions.

There is, of course, more to be understood about the specific role of sport in supporting transitions into employment (and positive youth development more generally) across a wide variety of educational settings. Moreover, there are several limitations to using non-formal approaches such as sport (e.g., the requirement for additional resources to support them and variability in practices, contexts, or educator abilities), which may make them less effective or less accessible for marginalised young people (see Souto-Otero 2016; Johnson and Majewska 2024). Yet there remains a level of uncertainty, reductionism, and, indeed, politicisation surrounding ‘the power of sport’ as an educational device, which undoubtedly contributes to its marginality in policy terms. While some have argued extensively for the value of sport as a mechanism for social justice that can be used to support and reorientate marginalised young people towards more optimistic futures (Morgan et al. 2021), others have cautioned against the oversimplification of sport’s capabilities in instrumental terms (Bloodworth et al. 2012). Nevertheless, advocacy for sport’s educational potential and contribution to human flourishing remains steadfast among researchers and practitioners working with and among diverse youth populations. To be explicit, the findings presented in this paper are intended to offer a grounded and collective perspective, from those working within the sport for development sector, of the broad potential of SBIs to support the employment journeys of (marginalised) young people, which may provide an embarkation point for future inquiry in this area.

However, a critical mechanism identified within this paper, and a key point of difference between SBIs and more traditional (formal) approaches to supporting the education to work transition, is the educational environment that is created. Our study demonstrates how SBIs typically provide a supportive and inclusive educational climate where young people can acquire both propositional and procedural knowledge (Johnson and Majewska 2022) to enhance employability, while concurrently enabling them to (re)connect with formal systems and initiatives designed to expedite the transition to work. From a practical perspective, this study highlights the necessity to initially build a bridge to employment as a foundation for supporting young people’s employment transition. This entails addressing the barriers that a young person may face to obtaining employment and developing career readiness in an incremental fashion, before focusing on the enablers of employment, such as skills acquisition and access to qualifications. In particular, a focus on bridge building is critical for young people who are furthest from an employment destination (Morgan et al. 2023; Commers et al. 2022).

Future research should continue to interrogate the pedagogical environment to ascertain the value of sport both as an activity and context for learning. One area that appears ripe for further exploration in understanding sport’s role in supporting precarious employment transitions is the relational dimensions upon which the sporting experience is structured. Indeed, while mentoring has been shown to be effective in different kinds of educational interventions to improve attitudes, interest, and self-efficacy, especially for underrepresented groups (De Gioannis et al. 2023), this is often contingent on how mentors operating in this environment are trained (Stelter et al. 2020; Stoeger et al. 2021). However, consistent with this study, central to the creation of an inclusive educational environment that supports marginalised young people to enhance their employability, are the pedagogical relationships that are established both during the SBI and, importantly, that are maintained post-intervention. Therefore, research should endeavour to critically examine how sport as a specific form of educational activity can help to recast power relations between marginalised young people and educators that may have become problematic in more formal journeys from school to work.