UNCRPD and Sport: A Comparative Analysis of European States Parties Reports

Abstract

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) is the first international treaty to provide a basis for standards for the rights of persons with disabilities. It also represents the first human rights convention formally ratified by the European Union. In 2008, the UNCRPD was ratified by the majority of EU and EEA member states. Article 30 of the Convention specifically addresses the right to participate in cultural life, recreation, leisure, and sport is referenced and addressed in the UNCRPD States Parties reports submitted by all EU and EEA countries, as well as the United Kingdom. Research Question: How is sport represented in the State Party reports submitted under the UNCRPD? Methods: Data were collected from the UN Treaty Body Database. When multiple States Parties reports were available for a country, both reports were included for analysis. Results: Thematic analysis of 31 UNCRPD States Parties reports from EU, EEA, and UK countries revealed six key themes: General Factors, Sport in Article 30, Types of Support, Entities, Assistive Technologies, and Assistive Technologies in Sport. Sport was mentioned in all reports, with 90.3% referencing recreational sport and 83.9% elite-level sport. Funding and programmes were the most frequently cited supports for inclusive sport. Nearly half of the countries reported dedicated entities overseeing disability sport. Assistive technology was widely referenced across multiple UNCRPD articles, but only 16.1% of countries discussed its use specifically in sport. Countries differ significantly in their implementation of the UNCRPD in the context of sports. While some nations are advancing toward full inclusion, where disability does not affect an individual’s ability to participate in sports, others remain in the early stages of addressing participation in sport. These countries often rely on targeted programs specifically designed to facilitate the participation of persons with disabilities. Discussion: The analysis reveals significant disparities in how countries report and implement sport-related provisions under the UNCRPD. Ambiguities in categorizing elite versus recreational sport, underreporting of existing programs and entities, and limited references to strategic frameworks like the Kazan Action Plan highlight inconsistencies in reporting. Assistive technology (AT), while widely acknowledged across UNCRPD articles, is rarely linked to sport, despite its critical role in facilitating access and participation. These gaps suggest a need for clearer guidelines and more comprehensive reporting to ensure inclusive and equitable sport opportunities for persons with disabilities. Conclusions: There are notable disparities among countries’ reports in terms of mentioning participation for people with disability in sport, with some mentioning greater emphasis in integration and accessibility than others. To advance the UNCRPD rights through sport, clearer guidelines, standardized terminology, and more comprehensive reporting practices are essential.

1. Introduction

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) is the first international treaty to legally establish minimum standards for the rights of persons with disabilities [1]. It also represents a historic milestone as the first human rights convention formally ratified by the European Union. Since its adoption in 2008, the majority of EU and European Economic Area (EEA) member states have ratified the Convention [2]. Among its provisions, Article 30 explicitly affirms the right of persons with disabilities to participate in cultural life, recreation, leisure, and sport [3].

To support the implementation of these rights within the sports sector, the UNESCO Kazan Action Plan (KAP) provides a strategic framework that promotes inclusive access to sport for all individuals, including those with disabilities. As a foundational human rights treaty, the UNCRPD emphasizes the importance of participation in cultural and recreational life, and the KAP operationalizes this commitment by translating it into concrete actions and policies within sport and physical activity.

Adopted by UNESCO in 2017, the Kazan Action Plan positions sport as a powerful tool for sustainable development and peace [4,5]. It aims to integrate sport into national and international development agendas, recognizing its potential to address key social challenges such as poverty, gender inequality, and social exclusion. Central to the KAP is the promotion of inclusive access to sport, regardless of a person’s background or ability, alongside the advancement of ethical standards, fair play, and the protection of sport’s integrity. Through multi-stakeholder collaboration, including governments, NGOs, academia, and sports organizations, the KAP seeks to empower youth, promote gender equality, foster social inclusion, and stimulate economic growth. It also adopts an evidence-based approach to monitor and evaluate the impact of sport-related initiatives, supported by tools and resources developed by UNESCO and coordinated by the Intergovernmental Committee for Physical Education and Sport CIGEPS [4]. Ultimately, the KAP serves as a comprehensive guide for leveraging the transformative power of sport to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [5].

While the KAP provides a powerful framework, several key factors must be addressed to ensure that people with disabilities can fully participate in sport. One such factor is assistive technology (AT), which plays a crucial role in realizing the rights of persons with disabilities as outlined in the UNCRPD, particularly in the context of sport. AT is a broad term that encompasses both assistive products (APs) and the systems, services, and policies required to ensure their availability to those who need them [6]. Assistive products are designed to support individuals with functional limitations, whether due to disability, health conditions, or aging, by facilitating greater participation in everyday life [7]. The population that benefits from AT is highly diverse, including individuals who experience challenges across different functional domains, including mobility, self-care, hearing, vision, cognition, and communication. This paper aligns with a rights and social approach seeing disability as arising from the interaction between a person’s functional abilities and their environment [8]. Within this framework, AT plays a critical role in addressing or navigating barriers and enabling participation, particularly in sport and physical activity.

The importance of assistive technology (AT) in facilitating the achievement of all of the articles in the UNCRPD [9] and, in particular, in relation to Article 30, has been well established in the literature [10,11,12,13]. AT plays a pivotal role in removing barriers and enabling access, particularly within sport and physical activity, by supporting individuals with functional limitations to engage more fully and equitably. Our previous research further highlights that the use of AT before and after the moment of “performance” or engagement in sport is highly relevant to participation itself [14]. This means that AT is not only important during the activity but also in enabling access and preparation for sport. Despite this, AT is rarely mentioned as part of sport in most state reports, yet we consider it integral to the broader picture of access to sport for people with disabilities. Accessible facilities and assistive products can be decisive factors, often the difference between participation and exclusion. For this reason, identifying mentions of AT beyond sport-specific sections helps illustrate whether countries are considering AT holistically, which ultimately influences opportunities for inclusive sport.

Despite the existence of frameworks and tools such as the KAP and assistive technology (AT) to support the implementation of rights outlined in the UNCRPD, many countries continue to face challenges in translating these commitments into practice.

This paper aims to assess how sport is represented within the framework of the UNCRPD, through an analysis of States Parties reports. We do this by identifying (1) the ways in which sport is referred to in States Parties reports; (2) the policy frameworks, accessibility and funding, specific programmes and initiatives, and community engagements described in State Parties reports; (3) the existence of dedicated entities responsible for sports activities involving persons with disabilities mentioned in State Parties reports. Additionally, as a key mediator and moderator of achievement of these rights and the Sustainable Development Goals [15] it examines (4) the presence and relevance of assistive technology within these reports, both in general terms and in relation to participation in sport as outlined in Article 30.

The evaluation focuses on EU and EEA countries, as well as the United Kingdom, to assess the degree of attention given to sport in national reporting. Our focus is on systemic patterns and shared challenges in the reporting on sport and assistive technology under the UNCRPD.

2. Methods

This research examined the representation of sport in European State Party Reports submitted under Article 30 of the UNCRPD. The analysis encompassed countries within the European Union (EU), the European Economic Area (EEA), and the United Kingdom. Data were sourced from the United Nations Treaty Body Database, accessible via OHCHR.org. In cases where multiple State Parties reports were available for a country, both published reports were included for analysis.

Building on the main research question, How is sport represented in the State Party reports submitted under the UNCRPD?, a series of secondary questions emerged that informed the selection of keywords and guided the inductive component of the analysis. To extract relevant data, a structured set of guiding questions was applied to assess how sport is addressed in different State Parties reports. These questions examined whether sport is mentioned broadly, the nature and extent of national support and whether such support is limited to elite or Paralympic sport. The analysis also considered whether countries are signatories to the UN Kazan Action Plan and the Optional Protocol to the UNCRPD. Additionally, using the secondary questions, it explored references to ministries responsible for sport, the presence of national organizations for sport and disability, and mentions of Paralympic committees or Special Olympics initiatives.

A content analysis, following the methodology of Neuendorf [16] was conducted across the 32 included countries using a keyword analysis. Initially, a targeted search was performed within each State Party report using the following terms: “Sport,” “Physical Activity,” “Physical Exercise,” “Exercise,” “Leisure,” “Play,” “Deporte,” “Educación Física,” “Ejercicio,” “Actividad,” “Actividad Física,” “Assistive Technology,” “Aid,” and “Equipment”.

The extracted sections were categorized into a data extraction table depending on the key term. Subsequently, a thematic analysis, following the methodology of Braun and Clarke [17], of the extracted content was carried out, guided by pre-established research questions. The thematic analysis combined both inductive and deductive approaches. Inductively, it was guided by the research questions, while deductively, it remained open to identifying new patterns or themes that did not fit into the existing categories. For example, although the data extraction table initially included a category for types of support mentioned in relation to sports, the specific subcategories (funding, legislation, programmes, accessibility and promotion) emerged through deductive analysis. As similar forms of support repeatedly appeared, they could be grouped together into meaningful categories.

The lead author (A.G.) was responsible for filtering and extracting data from the reports. In cases where thematic discrepancies arose, a co-author (E.M.S.) was consulted for a second opinion.

The methodology employed was adapted from the study by Smith et al. [18], titled Assistive Technology Content in United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Reports by States Parties, published as part of the Global Perspectives on Assistive Technology: Proceedings of the GReAT Consultation 2019. Smith et al.’s article conducted a keyword analysis on a sample of UNCRPD reports submitted by States Parties, examining reporting patterns across countries with different levels on the UN Human Development Index within each of the six WHO regions. Although their study was broader in scope and primarily focused on AT, we adapted the underlying approach, with the added emphasis on sports.

3. Results

The results of this study are presented in the following section, which is organized into six thematic areas: General Factors; Sport in Article 30; Types of Support; Entities; Assistive Technologies; and Assistive Technologies in Sport.

Of the 32 countries in the EU, EEA, and UK, 31 countries had submitted an initial UNCRPD State Party report and four (Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, and Sweden) had submitted an additional combined second and third periodic report, which was included in the analysis. Liechtenstein is the only country that has not yet submitted a report. Of the 32 countries, 77.4% (n = 24) had ratified the Optional Protocol to the UNCRPD, while 25.8% (n = 8) had not. However, it is worth noting that three of the eight countries (Bulgaria, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, and Switzerland) have signed the Optional Protocol to the UNCRPD but have not yet ratified it [19]. The general factors of these States Parties reports will be outlined in the subsequent section.

3.1. General Factors

Table 1. List of factors and corresponding country mentions.

	Number of Countries Who Mention the Factor
Section	Factor	Fraction of Countries (n = 31 *)	Percentage of Countries (%)
Mention of Sport	Mention sport broadly	31	100
	Mention recreational sport	29	93.5
	Mention elite-level sport	26	83.9
	Mention Paralympic or elite-level sport exclusively	2	6.5
	Mention rehabilitation sport	8	25.8
	Mention the UN Kazan Action Plan	1	3.2
Sport Organizations	Paralympic committee mentioned	15 **	48.4
	Special Olympics committee mentioned	6 **	19.4
	National organization for Sports and disability mentioned	14	45.2
Assistive Technology	Mention assistive technology	31	100
	Mention assistive technology in Article 30 (Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport)	15	48.4
	Mention Assistive Technology for Sport	5	16.1

* Number of countries which have submitted a report. ** Some countries (e.g., Germany) mention athletes competing but do not reference a Paralympic or Special Olympics committee; these cases have been excluded.

provides a summary of the key factors extracted from each State Party report, organized into three categories: mention of sport, sport organizations and assistive technology. These categories emerged from the secondary research questions. The listed factors are further explored in the following analysis. Among the 31 reports reviewed, 31 (100%) mention sport in some form. In 90.3% of the reports (n = 29), sport is referenced at the recreational level, encompassing activities ranging from informal play to structured physical education. In contrast, elite-level sport refers to performance-based disciplines and organized sporting bodies operating at a high level. Elite-level sport was mentioned in 83.9% of the reports (n = 26). Notably, two reports did not mention any programs related to recreational sport, only mentioning elite-level sport.

Sport for rehabilitative purposes is addressed in 25.8% of countries (n = 8) including: Croatia, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania.

Additionally, 48.4% of the reports (n = 15) mention a Paralympic Committee, while 19.4% of reports (n = 6) reference a Special Olympics Committee. In some cases, athletes are reported to participate in both Paralympic and Special Olympics events, even when no formal committee is mentioned.

3.2. Sport in Article 30

As previously noted, sport was referenced in various forms across all States Parties reports analysed (n = 31).

Table 2. Comparing sport representation in UNCRPD European States Parties reports.

Reports	Policy Framework	Accessibility/Funding	Programmes & Initiatives	Community Engagement
Austria	Federal and regional policies support disabled sports through legislation and funding, including the Federal Sports Promotion Act and Special Olympics initiatives	Barrier-free design mandated for public sports venues; subsidies tied to accessibility compliance.	Special Olympics, Paralympic Committee, and regional programs promote inclusion; public relations campaigns highlight disabled athletes.	Local and national events promote inclusion; public transport and mobility support provided.
Belgium	Anti-discrimination laws and federated entities promote inclusive sports through G-sports policies, infrastructure subsidies, and legal mandates.	Accessibility standards required for infrastructure subsidies; companion cards reduce participation costs.	G-sports clubs, holiday camps, and coach training programs promote inclusion; subsidies for clubs admitting disabled athletes.	Community agencies offer training and mobility support; inclusion integrated into coach education.
Bulgaria	No specific policies/laws mentioned. National Long-Term Strategy and Ministry of Youth and Sports programs support inclusive sports through legislation, funding, and infrastructure development.	Accessible sports venues constructed and renovated; funding for adaptation of cultural and sports sites.	Programs like ‘Sports for Children in Free Time’ and ‘Sports for People with Disabilities’ reach over 1 million children; school games adapted for various impairments.	Union of the Blind organizes cultural and sports events; Agency for People with Disabilities funds inclusive activities.
Croatia	No specific policies/ laws mentioned. Croatian Paralympic Committee promotes disability sports	Accessibility regulated by law; public venues including sports facilities must be barrier-free.	Croatian Paralympic Committee promotes disability sports through awareness campaigns, school programs, and national/international competitions; School-based programs, summer camps, and award ceremonies promote participation and recognition.	Public awareness raised through school outreach and national events; inclusive sports organizations supported.
Cyprus	No specific policies/ laws mentioned. Voluntary organizations supported by government grants provide inclusive sports and recreational programs.	Youth centres offer inclusive sports activities; infrastructure supported by voluntary organizations, supported by government grants	Inclusive programs offered by youth centres and voluntary organizations.	Voluntary organizations play a key role in delivering inclusive sports programs.
Czech Republic	Ministries support inclusive sports through education, cultural access, and civic associations; athletes with disabilities compete internationally.	Sports facilities adapted for students with disabilities; assistive devices provided in schools.	Subsidies for civic associations; inclusive holiday and school sports programs.	Public institutions offer discounted access to cultural and sports events; inclusive education supported.
Denmark	National organizations promote inclusive sports; government supports infrastructure, education, and public recognition of disabled athletes.	Guides and networks promote accessible sports facilities and outdoor activities.	School sport programs, summer camps, and national/international competitions supported by government.	Disability Sport Information Centre promotes cross-sectoral inclusion and knowledge sharing.
Estonia	National Sports Policy until 2030 includes disability mainstreaming	223 of 2500 sports facilities have infrastructure for disabled people; Ministries of Culture and Social Affairs fund disability sport.	Disability sports organizations offer training camps and rehabilitative sport with professional coaches. National events are becoming more inclusive (e.g., the Two Bridges Run tracks wheelchair participants separately, and the 2014 Year of Exercise featured events for people with intellectual disabilities).	Efforts to include disabled people in mainstream sports events are growing, such as wheelchair participation tracking in the Two Bridges Run and dedicated events during Estonia’s Year of Exercise (2014).
Finland	Promotes inclusive sport through the Act on the Promotion of Sports and Physical Activity (2015)	Accessibility required in facility grants; guidelines and surveys implemented; Government grants include disability sport; 3% allocated to adaptive sports.	Prime Minister’s programme, emphasizing equality.	Free event access for assistants; EU Disability Card supports cross-border benefits; Åland prioritizes accessible sports facilities.
France	Act of 2005 emphasizes accessibility including sport;	Accessibility works underway in national sports establishments; €19.6 million allocated to adaptive sports by 2013	The Ministry of Sports established a national network and resource centre in 2003 to support adaptive sports through training, funding, and project development. This includes identifying and listing associations offering adaptive sports on a dedicated website.	National public sports establishments hosting training camps for athletes with disabilities.
Germany	Each German state promotes sports locally, while the national federation handles country-wide programs. Legal regulations ensure benefits for all levels—from recreational to elite and rehab sports.	Access supported by statutory regulations and benefits; €20 million allocated (2010–2013) for disability sport	The 2005 performance sport programme ensures equal treatment for athletes with and without disabilities.	Federal support for inclusive participation in diverse sports programs
Greece	Law 2725/1999 protects and regulates disability sports.	Accessibility included in all new sports facility designs since 2000; Annual subsidies from General Secretariat of Sports.	The “Beach for All” project in Jūrmala (referenced in broader context) demonstrates inclusive design with tactile paths, wheelchair-accessible facilities, and adapted equipment.	In 2003, a European Conference in Thessaloniki focused on access to cultural and sports sites for people with disabilities. The Greek National Council for Radio and Television (ESR) recommends that broadcasters include sports programming with Greek subtitles to improve accessibility.
Hungary	Supports disability sports through the Sports Act and state-backed organizations like the Hungarian Sport Federation for People with Special Needs and the Paralympic Committee, which organize competitions, leisure, and student activities.	Accessibility integrated; State support for federations and clubs; regional workshops funded	Workshops develop auxiliary and sports equipment.	Children and students with disabilities have equal access to recreational and sports facilities within the school system.
Iceland	Action Plan 2017–2021 promotes health and exercise for people with disabilities. Public health policies and agreements between the Directorate of Health and municipalities are designed to consider the needs of people with disabilities.	Accessibility considered in health policy; Grants for clubs and education projects overseen by Icelandic Sports Association for the Disabled	Educational materials and apps promote exercise. The Icelandic Sports Association for the Disabled has launched projects to train coaches, clubs, and supporters, aiming to increase participation.	The Association also actively collaborates with preschools to raise awareness and promote early engagement in sports for children with disabilities. Municipalities play a key role in ensuring access to social and recreational activities, both within and outside the school system.
Ireland	National Sports Policy 2018–2027 includes commitments to disability inclusion; 2017 Kazan Action Plan Framework.	€548,000 to para-athletes in 2019 through the International Carding Scheme. Ireland acknowledges the lower participation rates of people with disabilities in sport and commits to increasing inclusion.	The Sports Capital and Equipment Programme prioritizes projects that benefit people with disabilities.; The UNESCO Chair in Inclusive Physical Education, Sport, Recreation & Fitness at Munter Technological University * promotes research and training for inclusion, aligned with the 2017 Kazan Action Plan.	A national network of Sports Inclusion Disability Officers (SIDOs) works locally to increase participation, collaborating with schools, clubs, service providers, and people with disabilities. In 2019, SIDOs reached 24,387 individuals, with 2649 receiving education and training. Additionally, Special Olympics Ireland engages nearly 8000 athletes in 15 sports, including a Young Athletes programme for children aged 2–7.
Italy	Promotes inclusive sport through Law 104/92, mandating barrier removal and coordinated planning across sectors, including tailored Individual Education Plans (IEPs) for students with disabilities.	Since 2003, sports facility accessibility has improved, with CIP advisors helping CONI remove architectural barriers. TANGOS, launched in 2011, supports inclusive sport planning. In 2010–2011, the Department for Equal Opportunities invested €7 million in national projects promoting equality in art and sport.	Sport is supported at both amateur and elite levels, with CONI and CIP playing central roles. CIP oversees Paralympic federations that promote inclusive sport across all ages and disciplines.	Italy’s Law 104/92 promotes inclusion by removing barriers to sport, tourism, and recreation, coordinating efforts across sectors and supporting students with disabilities through tailored Individual Education Plans (IEPs).
Latvia	Local governments are legally mandated to promote healthy lifestyles and sport under the Law on Local Governments, with the Ministry of Health supporting health promotion initiatives at the municipal level.	Infrastructure development is guided by accessibility standards, with all national sports bases required to accommodate training and events for persons with disabilities	Rehabilitation services support sport participation, especially for people with vision impairments, through adapted training. LPC coordinates disability sport across 14 federations and 21 disciplines.	LPC hosts ~40 inclusive events yearly, engaging ~5000 participants (≈10% of Latvia’s disabled population). It also offers regular health checks for athletes, though elite disability sport insurance remains limited. Special Olympics Latvia supports ~2000 children across 27 schools, organizing national competitions and international participation.
Lichtenstein	NA	NA	NA	NA
Lithuania	Promotes inclusive sport through the Department of Physical Education and Sports and the Ministry of Social Security and Labour; The National Programme for Social Integration (2010–2012) includes sport and recreation as key components; The Law on Physical Education and Sport guarantees equal access for all, regardless of disability.	Paralympic and Deaflympic athletes are eligible for state grants and prize money. Titles like “Merited Athlete” and “Coach of the Republic” recognize outstanding achievements in disability sport.	The National Programme for Social Integration of Persons with Disabilities (2010–2012) promotes equal opportunities through actions across public life, including sport, recreation, education, and rehabilitation.	Community-level projects fund disabled sports clubs, training sessions, camps, and festivals. In 2011 alone, 127 events engaged over 4200 participants, including children with disabilities.
Luxembourg	Since 2007, the Ministerial Department for Sports has had a dedicated disability sports section, including staff with disabilities, focused on creating optimal training conditions.	Fräizäitservice leisure programmes are partly funded by the Ministry of the Family, supporting inclusive sport and recreation for persons with disabilities.	Awareness Fortnight (launched in 2012) promotes inclusion through exhibitions, debates, and sports activities involving over 40 associations.	Luxembourg City Council supports inclusion through its “Sports for All” strategy, organizing multi-sport sessions for youth with disabilities.
Malta	Promotes inclusive access to sport through legal protections and targeted initiatives. The Equal Opportunities Act (EOA) prohibits discrimination in access to sports and recreation facilities	Most sports complexes are reported as accessible, with ongoing structural modifications to improve inclusion.	Inclusive sports propagated through adaptive programs, trained support staff, and national initiatives like wheelchair basketball. The Committee for Sport of Persons with Disability, chaired by a disabled leader, drives participation. The Maltese Council for Sport boosts awareness with mixed-ability events and supports disability NGOs with equipment	The Ministry of Education and Employment supports Special Olympics Malta, enabling students with disabilities to participate in various sports disciplines. Maltese athletes also compete in the Paralympics, Deaflympics, and Special Olympics. Most sports complexes are accessible, with ongoing upgrades to improve inclusion.
Netherlands	The government’s guiding principle is that everyone should be able to engage in sport and exercise in their own neighbourhood.	A strong emphasis is put on local accessibility, adaptive sports development, and transport and equipment support; While effective, transport remains limited, and regional gaps in resources have prompted national action.	The “Sport and Exercise in the Neighbourhood” programme aims to make sport accessible to all, with neighbourhood sports coaches (65% coverage). In 2018, Sport Impulse project applications focused on vulnerable groups, including persons with disabilities. Elite sports programmes are accessible to athletes with disabilities through Paralympic branches of national federations.”.	National sports clubs are encouraged to adopt inclusive policies, enabling people with and without disabilities to participate together. Sports specifically for persons with disabilities (e.g., para ice hockey, wheelchair rugby, blind football) are supported by the Dutch Disabled Sports Foundation when not yet affiliated with national federations. Programs like ‘Active without Borders’ and platforms like ‘Unique Sports’ connect communities to adaptive opportunities.
Norway	Promotes inclusive sport through a mainstreaming approach, ensuring that persons with disabilities participate in sports alongside the general population. Since 1996 NIF’s General Assembly, athletes with disabilities have been included under the general umbrella of sport, reflecting the goal that everyone should have access to sport in their local community.	The government provides grants to the Confederation of Sports (NIF), with a clear expectation that disability sport is prioritized.	No specific programmes mentioned. The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (NIF) is the government’s key partner in disability sport. NIF reports around 11,000 members with disabilities.	According to national statistics, there is no significant difference in membership or volunteer participation in sports clubs and associations between people with and without disabilities.
Poland	The Act on Vocational and Social Rehabilitation mandates local government (powiats) to co-fund cultural and sports activities for disabled people. The Disability Sport Council, established in 2008, advises on policy and development. Organizations can form sports associations under the Act on Sport.	The Physical Culture Development Fund, financed through gambling revenue, supports the modernization of sports facilities, sports events, equipment purchases, and training of coaches and volunteers; Equal funding rules for disabled and non-disabled athletes. Scholarships and awards are also granted on equal terms, and healthcare for national team members is funded by the state.	Specialized programs support preparation for international competitions, including the Paralympics, Deaflympics, and non-Olympic sports, involving organizations like Start, Olimp, Sprawni-Razem, CROSS, and Amp-Futbol.	The country hosts inclusive sports competitions, such as the Wheelchair Fencing World Cup and Wheelchair Tennis Tournament, and regularly features disability sport in TV broadcasts.
Portugal	Portugal embeds the right to sport in its Constitution (Art. 79), backed by laws like 5/2007 and 1/90 that promote universal access and inclusion. These laws recognize sport as vital for personal and social development, ensuring equal opportunities for people with disabilities across all levels.	Portugal supports inclusive elite sports through key organizations like CPP, FPDD, and SOP, offering scholarships and prep aid for Paralympic athletes. Legal provisions ensure equal treatment in registration, career support, and awards—backed by €250,000 in funding since 2009.	The Portuguese Sports Institute (IDP) supports various programs, including technical development, national teams, and human resources training. A quadrennial contract-program was signed in 2009 between IDP, INR, and CPP to ensure optimal conditions for Paralympic athletes.	Portugal is considering a Deaflympic preparation project and is working on harmonizing terminology across sectors, including sport, to improve data collection and policy coordination.
Romania	Legal mandates and national programs support sport as rehabilitation, equal rewards for athletes with disabilities, and EU-level cooperation.	Infrastructure development includes sports facilities; European Disability Card grants free access to events.	National Paralympic Committee supported; ‘Pierre de Coubertin’ program funds inclusive sports and new disciplines like archery.	Government collaborates with EU and local organizations; inclusive camps and public events organized annually.
Slovakia	The Act on the Organisation and Promotion of Sport mandates that new sports facilities meet accessibility standards, and renovations must consider the needs of persons with physical disabilities; The Act on Cash Benefits to Compensate Severe Disability	Slovakia supports inclusive sport through personal assistance (up to 7300 h/year) and funding for disability sports unions. In 2012, €350,000 backed competitions, training, and education. Legal measures also ensure elite athletes with disabilities receive equal support and recognition.	“Sports for the Disabled” program; The Concept for the Development of Physical Activities for Children and Youth includes measures to create special sports programs for children and youth with disabilities	The Slovak Paralympic Committee plays a central role in promoting disability sport, organizing events such as Paralympic Day, Against Cancer on Wheels, and From Schools on Wheels, which combine sport with education and social inclusion. The Committee also publishes the Paralympionik journal to raise awareness and combat discrimination.
Slovenia	The Health Inspection Act ensures that public spaces, including sports and recreation facilities, meet health and hygiene standards, supporting safe and accessible environments.	The Ministry of Education and Sport co-finances the activities and preparation of athletes with disabilities through ZŠIS-POK. This includes awards for medal-winning athletes and support for both competitive and recreational programs. Co-financing also occurs through other sectors for broader inclusion.; Improvement in accessibility in sports identified/required: from equipment and facility access to adapted amenities, wheelchair access, and inclusive spectator spaces.	ZŠIS-POK plays a central role in organizing national and international competitions, with over 1100 athletes participating annually in national championships and around 130 in international events.	Organizing national and international competitions. Community-level efforts focus on improving facility access, adapted amenities, and support for recreational and elite athletes with disabilities.
Spain	The Organization of Education Act includes sport as a core component of the national curriculum across all school levels, alongside music, dance, and the arts. Spain supports inclusive sport through education policy, elite athlete development, and comprehensive training programs.	Spain’s 2010 ADOP Plan provides direct financial support to Paralympic athletes.	A key initiative is the ADOP Plan, developed by the Spanish Paralympic Committee, the Higher Council for Sports, and the Ministry of Health and Social Policy. This program aims to provide optimal training conditions for Spanish Paralympic athletes to ensure strong performance at the Paralympic Games. Spain’s ADOP Plan 2010 boosts Paralympic athletes with direct financial aid, elite training via the ARPA program, and full support, from equipment and staff to medical care and international competition access.	Spain’s education laws, through royal decrees, set minimum content standards across all school levels, integrating subjects like languages, music, dance, and sports.
Sweden	Integrates a disability perspective into all government initiatives related to culture, media, and sport, aiming to improve participation opportunities for persons with disabilities.	Inclusive access is ensured through state subsidies; Monitoring efforts by the Sports Research Centre and the Swedish Agency for Participation help track accessibility and inclusion, while national recognition is given through awards like Disabled Sportsperson of the Year.	Key organizations like SHIF/SPK and the Swedish Deaf Sports Federation offer structured opportunities across multiple sports.	Child and youth sports must align with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, promoting participation for children with disabilities in both recreational and competitive settings.
Switzerland	Promotes inclusive sport through policy coordination, infrastructure standards, education, and organizational partnerships. Disabled Persons Act is mentioned.	Switzerland promotes disability sports through public funding, inclusive events, and accessible infrastructure. The Disabled Persons Act and SIA 500 standard ensure new or renovated sports facilities meet accessibility guidelines developed with key partners.	The Federal Office for the Equality of Disabled Persons includes sport as a priority area in its equality programs, aiming to raise awareness, foster collaboration, and coordinate measures across sectors.	The Federal Institute of Sport integrates disability inclusion into its education, research, and service delivery, training physical education teachers and conducting research on participation and equality in sport.
United Kingdom and Northern Ireland	No specific policies/laws mentioned. Promotes inclusive sport through awareness campaigns, legacy planning, and funding.	The £135 million Places People Play legacy plan includes £8 million in lottery funding to address barriers to participation, with input from disabled people. Sport England funds the English Federation of Disability Sport (EFDS) to increase participation and ensure accessibility in facility upgrades. In Scotland, the Commonwealth Games legacy includes inclusive planning and projects like Personal Best, which supports disabled volunteers. Despite progress, the UK acknowledges that disabled people still participate less in cultural, leisure, and sporting activities than non-disabled people, and commits to removing barriers in areas such as buildings, transport, and information.	Initiatives included funding for volunteering, inclusive sports programs like ‘Playground to Podium’, and consultations to improve accessibility. National bodies such as Sport England and the English Federation of Disability Sport were key partners. The ADOP Plan and Playground to Podium initiative support elite athlete development, providing financial grants, training, and coaching for disabled athletes.	Uses major events like the 2012 London Paralympic Games to shift perceptions, boost participation, and foster community engagement. Visit Scotland promotes accessible tourism with input from disabled people, while the Welsh Government ensures safe, inclusive pre-Games training camps in partnership with Disability Sports Wales.

* Formally known as Institute of Technology, Tralee. ADOP: Application Domain Others Pattern. ZŠIS-POK: Zveza za šport invalidov Slovenije—Slovenski paralimpijski komite. SHIF/SPK: Swedish Parasport Federation and Swedish Paralympic Committee.

lists the representation of sport within these reports, as outlined in Article 30 of the UNCRPD (Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure, and sport). This section encompasses all types of engagement in sport, ranging from recreational activities, physical education, and general physical activity to elite-level and Paralympic sport.

As a reference point for comparison, four categories were established to analyse how States Parties reports address sport. These categories, policy framework, accessibility and funding, programmes and initiatives, and community engagement, were derived from the most frequently recurring themes across the majority of reports. While not exhaustive, they offer a meaningful structure for identifying key similarities and differences in national approaches. The following sections briefly outline some of the main findings and best practices within each category.

3.2.1. Policy Framework

Several countries (n = 17) referenced specific laws regulating sport for persons with disabilities, either through dedicated legislation or as part of broader sport policies. For example, Greece’s Law 2725/1999 explicitly protects and regulates disability sports, while Finland’s Act on the Promotion of Sports and Physical Activity promotes inclusive participation across all levels of sport.

3.2.2. Accessibility and Funding

Accessibility was also mentioned by several countries (n = 17), often in the context of creating barrier-free environments. Austria, for instance, emphasized the importance of accessible public sports venues. Funding was the most frequently cited theme (n = 26). While the focus varied, many countries highlighted financial support for inclusive sport. Ireland allocated €548,000 in 2019 specifically for para-athletes through the International Carding Scheme, whereas Germany reported a broader investment of €20 million between 2010 and 2013 to support disability sport in general.

3.2.3. Programmes and Initiatives

Many countries (n = 25) described national programmes aimed at promoting inclusive sport, particularly at the non-elite level. Lithuania’s National Programme for Social Integration of Persons with Disabilities (2010–2012) supported equal opportunities across public life, including sport, recreation, education, and rehabilitation. In contrast, Spain’s ADOP Plan, developed by the Spanish Paralympic Committee, the Higher Council for Sports, and the Ministry of Health and Social Policy, focuses on elite athletes, providing optimal training conditions to ensure strong performance at the Paralympic Games.

3.2.4. Community Engagement

Several countries (n = 16) addressed community-level efforts to promote sport among persons with disabilities. Malta, for example, supports student participation in various sports disciplines through the Ministry of Education and Employment, in collaboration with Special Olympics Malta. Most sports complexes in Malta are accessible, with ongoing upgrades to improve inclusion. Norway takes a mainstreaming approach, integrating athletes with disabilities into the general sports system. This reflects a national goal of universal access to sport within local communities. According to Norwegian statistics, there is no significant difference in sports club membership or volunteer participation between people with and without disabilities.

3.3. Types of Support Mentioned

Table 3. Types of support for sport mentioned.

Types of Support Mentioned	Fraction of Reports (n = 31)	Percentage of Countries (%)
Funding (Grants, etc.)	26	83.9
Programmes (Projects?)	25	80.6
Legislation (Laws, Regulations, etc.)	17	54.8
Accessibility (Infrastructure, etc.)	17	54.8
Promotion (Information, Awareness raising, etc.)	16	51.6

presents the various types of support for sport mentioned across the UNCRPD States Parties reports. The most frequently cited forms of support include legislation, funding, programmes, accessibility, and promotional efforts. Funding was the most commonly referenced, appearing in 83.9% of the reports (n = 23), followed closely by programmes, which was mentioned in 80.6% of the reports (n = 25). Accessibility and legislation were the third most frequently cited types of support, appearing in 54.8% of the reports (n = 17). These findings highlight the emphasis placed on structured initiatives and financial backing to promote inclusive sport, alongside efforts to ensure accessible environments.

3.4. Entities

A total of 45.2% of the countries (n = 14) reported the existence of a dedicated entity responsible for sports activities involving persons with disabilities. These entities can however be divided into two categories: Civil Society Organizations Promoting Disability in Sport and Government Entities Responsible for Disability in Sport. A complete list of these entities is presented in

Table 4. Dedicated entities responsible for sports activities involving persons with disabilities mentioned in UNCRPD States Parties reports listed by countries.

Categories	Country	Entity Mention
Civil Society Organizations Promoting Disability in Sport	Austria	Austrian Association for Disabled Sports
	Belgium	G-sports (Gehandicaptensport) Association
	Denmark	Danish Sports Organization for the Disabled
	Estonia	Estonian Union of Sports for the Disabled
	France	French Federation of Sports for Persons with Disabilities and the French Federation of Adapted Sport
	Germany	Federation for German Disabled Sport
	Hungary	The Hungarian Sport Federation for People with Special Needs
	Iceland	The Icelandic Sports Association for the Disabled
	Ireland	National network of Sports Inclusion Disability Officers (SIDOs)
	Malta	Maltese Committee for Sport of Persons with Disability
	Netherlands	Dutch Disabled Sports Foundation
	Portugal	Portuguese Federation of Sports for Persons with Disabilities (FPDD)
Government Entities Responsible for Disability in Sport	Luxembourg	Disability Sports Section of the Luxembourg Ministerial Department for Sports
	Poland	The Disability Sport Council

. In many countries, general governmental sports entities including sport-specific ministries, government departments, and secretariats, were identified as being responsible for overseeing sports for individuals with disabilities. In other cases, responsibility fell to non-sport-specific institutions, including ministries or departments of education, social inclusion, or disability. Additionally, some countries reported the Paralympic Committee as the only responsible entity for overseeing sports for individuals with disabilities.

3.5. Assistive Technology

Assistive technology, along with related terms such as aids or equipment, was referenced in 31 States Parties reports (see

Table 5. Frequency of assistive technology references in UNCRPD States Parties reports by article.

Articles *	Fraction of Countries (n = 31)	Percentage of Countries (%)
Article 20 Personal mobility	25	80.6
Article 9 Accessibility	22	71
Article 24 Education	21	67.7
Article 19 Living independently and being included in the community	17	54.8
Article 26 Habilitation and rehabilitation	18	58.1
Article 27 Work and employment	15	48.4
Article 30 Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport	15	48.4
Article 28 Adequate standard of living and social protection	13	42
Article 25 Health	12	38.7
Article 21 Freedom of expression and opinion and access to information	10	32.3
Article 7 Children with disabilities	8	25.8
Article 13 Access to justice	8	25.8
Articles 1–4 (General principles of the Convention)	5	16.1
Article 32 International cooperation	5	16.1
Article 11 Situations of risks and humanitarian emergencies	4	12.9
Article 5 Equality and non-discrimination	3	9.7
Article 14 Liberty and security of person	3	9.7
Article 31 Statistics and data collection	3	9.7
Article 8 Awareness-raising	2	6.5
Article 23 Respect for domicile and family	2	6.5
Article 29 Participation in political and public life	2	6.5
Article 6 Women with disabilities	1	3.2
Article 12 Equal recognition before the law	1	3.2
Article 16 Freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse	1	3.2
Article 22 Respect for privacy	1	3.2

* Assistive Technology has to be mentioned at least once in the article to be included in this table.

). It was mentioned with most frequency in articles 9 (Accessibility) by 71% reports (n = 22); in article 19 (Living independently and being included in the community) by 54.4% (n = 17); in article 20 (Personal mobility) by 80.6% (n = 25); in article 24 (Education) mentioned by 67.7% (n = 21); and in article 26 (Habilitation and rehabilitation) in 58.1% of reports (n = 18). In Table 5 the frequency of assistive technology references in UNCRPD States Parties reports are listed by article from most mentioned to least mentioned. Assistive technology had to be mentioned at least once for the article to be included in the table. Examples of assistive technologies referenced include communication aids (such as speech output systems and Braille displays), hearing aids, mobility aids (including wheelchairs and ramps), therapeutic and orthopaedic devices, as well as specialized sports equipment.

3.6. Assistive Technology in Sport

A total of 48.4% of countries (n = 15) mentioned assistive technology, along with related terms such as aids or equipment, under Article 30 (Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport). However, only 16.1% (n = 5) talked about assistive technology (AT) in relation to sport specifically (see

Table 6. UNCRPD States Parties reports quotes relating to assistive technology in relation to sport listed by countries.

Assistive Technology (Aids, Equipment)
Country	Quote
Belgium	“The Flemish Government is taking steps not only to adapt sports facilities and equipment but also to ensure that information about sports options for persons with disabilities is made available. Fact sheets have been prepared to inform persons with disabilities of available adapted facilities and any restrictions.”
Ireland	“The Sports Capital and Equipment Programme is the primary vehicle for government support for the development of sports and physical recreation facilities and the purchase of non-personal sports equipment. The most recent funding round included a major focus on people with disabilities, with selection criteria weighted in favour of projects from disadvantaged areas or focused on people with disabilities. It is also a condition that all gym equipment funded must be accessible.”
Latvia	“On 19 May 2013, in Kauguri, the resort city of Jūrmala, a project “A beach for all” was launched. During a beach adjustment process there was constructed a path which was created from the special cover of a deal, labeled with a brightly yellow and wide lane in order to help people with vision disabilities to orient themselves. The width of a path and a dressing room are suitable for people in a wheelchair. Equipment includes tandem bicycles, chess and special balls that sound when played so that people with vision impairments can spend leisure time actively and interestingly.”
Poland	“Measures concerning general sports for disabled people are specified in the Regulation of the Minister of Sport and Tourism on financing tasks from the Physical Culture Development Fund. The Fund provides co-funding for: • Activities of sport clubs sections. • Sport events. • Sport classes within the programme “Sports coordinator for disabled people.” • Training of instructors, coaches, physiotherapists, trainee classifiers and sports volunteers. • Promotion of sport. • Purchases of sports equipment. Stadiums which hosted 2012 UEFA European Championship are adapted to the needs of disabled people (seats on bleachers, access to the seats, parking places, restrooms, services, signage in Braille). Audio description equipment was installed at all stadiums.”
Spain	“The ADOP Plan for 2010 includes a programme of direct support for athletes through financial grants to enable them to devote themselves to sport as their main activity. It also includes a High Performance Paralympic (ARPA) programme and a comprehensive training support programme which includes assistance for support personnel, sports equipment, training in high-performance centres, appearance at international competitions with medical service and other facilities.”

), whilst the rest mention it in relation to cultural or recreational usage (theatres, libraries, cinemas, tourism, etc.).

4. Discussion

This paper explores how sport is represented within the framework of the UNCRPD by analysing States Parties reports. It investigates how sport is referenced, the policy frameworks, accessibility measures, funding, programs, and community initiatives described, and whether dedicated entities for sports activities involving persons with disabilities are mentioned. Additionally, it examines the presence and relevance of assistive technology, both broadly and in relation to sport participation under Article 30.

In summary, while all States Parties reports mentioned sport, the extent and quality of CRPD implementation in this area varied widely. Some countries reported progress toward inclusive participation, whereas others indicated limited programs or faced delays. The lack of references to strategic frameworks, such as the Kazan Action Plan, signaled missed opportunities to integrate sport into national development agendas. Additionally, assistive technology was underreported in the context of sport. These inconsistencies in reporting highlighted the need for clearer guidelines and standardized documentation.

As expected every State Party report mentions Sport in some way. However, in some cases the categorisation was difficult since terms such as “sporting events” or sentences such as “creating opportunities of and supporting the engagement of people with special needs in rehabilitative sport”, could belong either to elite-level or recreational sport. In such cases, the terms were classified under recreational sport. For data to be categorized as elite-level sport, it had to explicitly include terms such as “elite,” “high performance,” or direct references to “athletes”.

Countries differ significantly in their implementation of the UNCRPD in the context of sports. While some nations are advancing toward full inclusion, where disability does not affect an individual’s ability to participate in sports (for instance Norway and Sweden), others remain in the early stages of development (for instance, Slovakia and Slovenia). Countries often rely on targeted programs specifically designed to facilitate the participation of persons with disabilities. Notably, several countries have identified planned interventions that remain unimplemented, reflecting the principle of progressive realization which is enshrined in the UNCRPD [20]. Future research could explore the implications of progressive realization on realization of the rights within the UNCRPD, including the right to access culture through participation in sport.

An effective solution for countries facing challenges in implementing the UNCRPD in the area of sport is the Kazan Action Plan (KAP), a strategic framework designed to integrate sport into national and international development agendas. Despite its potential, the KAP was referenced in only one State Party report, indicating limited awareness or uptake among member states. This article advocates for the broader adoption of the KAP across UNCRPD member states to support the systematic implementation of disability rights related to participation in sport, ensuring that inclusive and equitable access to physical activity is prioritized within national policy frameworks. Further research could also look at the practical implementation of the UNCRPD in different contexts.

It is noteworthy that certain elements may exist but are not explicitly mentioned in the reports. For example, although Finland, France, and Greece do not report the existence of a Paralympic or Special Olympics committee in their States Parties reports, such committees are known to exist in these countries. This omission may similarly apply to other nations and their States Parties reports.

Similarly, fewer than half of the countries (n = 14) reported the existence of a dedicated entity responsible for organizing sports activities for persons with disabilities. This limited reporting may reflect either a lack of available data or the reality that, in many countries, sports for individuals with disabilities are managed by general governmental bodies or broader federal associations not specifically focused on sport (e.g., the Ministry for Youth and Sport, National Sports Council, or National Culture and Disability Commission). Additionally, some countries identified the Paralympic Committee as the sole entity responsible for overseeing sports for people with disabilities. While this may ensure support for elite-level athletes, it risks marginalizing recreational and grassroots sports, which are equally vital for promoting inclusion and well-being.

In many cases, certain aspects may go unreported by countries, either because they do not exist, or because they are so embedded in everyday life that they are not perceived as noteworthy. The absence of reporting does not mean it doesn’t exist. For example, in Ireland, Football for All, a national program which is operated by the Irish Football Association (IFA), is not mentioned in Ireland’s State Party report. The IFA’s “Football for all” aim is to “ensure that all disabled people have the opportunity to take part in football activities and are able to fulfil their potential in the area of their choice” [21,22]. “Football for all” is a large, inclusive organization in Europe, so its absence is notable. This is a good example of where there may be programs which are such an integrated part of the existing systems that they are not even mentioned. This may be particularly relevant in better resourced environments where there is a greater degree of integration of disability into national programs and national funding schemes.

Another noteworthy pattern is the reporting of sport for rehabilitative purposes, which appears in seven countries: Croatia, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania. These member states, all located in Central and Eastern Europe, represent a region frequently grouped in discussions related to EU policy, security, and development. The inclusion of rehabilitation-focused sport and exercise in their reports suggests a regional emphasis on the therapeutic and integrative role of physical activity within disability policy frameworks. However, the absence of explicit references to rehabilitative sport in the other countries’ reports may also reflect its seamless integration into rehabilitation, where it is considered a standard component of the therapeutic process.

All the examples of unreported data, such as the absence of information on a Paralympic or Special Olympic committee, a dedicated entity, national programs or other forms of support, and the omission of sport for rehabilitative purposes, illustrate that missing data does not necessarily indicate nonexistence or absence. Rather, it reflects a gap in reporting.

Regarding assistive technology (AT), the 2019 WHO GATE consultation report anticipated its presence in Articles 20 (Personal Mobility), 24 (Education), 25 (Health), and 26 (Habilitation and Rehabilitation) of the Convention [18,23]. Consistent with the findings of Smith et al. [18], Article 20 (Personal Mobility) was the most frequently referenced article in relation to assistive technology (AT). However, it is noteworthy that AT was referenced more frequently in Articles 19 (Living independently and being included in the community) (n = 17) and 27 (Work and employment) (n = 15) than in Article 25 (Health) (n = 12). This disparity in results can be attributed to the profile of countries included in this analysis. Whilst Smith et al. [18] analysed States Parties reports from both high- and low-income countries, this article focuses on high-income countries, which might explain why AT is more prevalent in articles 19 and 27.

Additionally, in relation to sport, the findings which show that while 100% of the reports mention assistive technology, less than half (48.4%) mention it under article 30 and only 5 countries (16.1%) mention AT specifically for sport. This gap is concerning, given the substantial body of research demonstrating how critical AT is to sport participation [11,24,25,26]. AT is essential not only during sports participation but also in facilitating access to sport in the first place [14]. For instance, the example of Latvia’s “Beach for All” initiative, presented in Table 6, illustrates that access to sport is as crucial as sporting programs themselves. Further research is needed to explore how every-day assistive technology can facilitate participation in sport for people with disability. Particularly at a non-elite level of sports.

In response to the interpretation of findings, the authors propose a set of reporting recommendations aimed at enhancing consistency and strengthening accountability among reporting States. These recommendations are informed by the recurring absence of key information in many States Parties reports. States Parties reports should provide a clear and comprehensive overview of the national ecosystem supporting equitable access to sport for persons with disabilities. This includes identifying all relevant stakeholders, outlining their roles, and highlighting any gaps in the system. Reports should also adopt consistent terminology, and explicitly reference both the Kazan Action Plan (KAP) and the UNCRPD, demonstrating how these frameworks inform and relate to the actions described.

This research highlights the significance of the UNCRPD and underscores the necessity of effectively implementing its provisions. It further emphasizes that the manner in which progress is reported plays a critical role in determining the effectiveness of these rights’ realization.

These findings underscore the importance of establishing common terminology, improving data collection, and adopting standardized reporting practices to ensure that sport is effectively leveraged as a tool for inclusion and the realization of disability rights under the UNCRPD.

Furthermore, this study highlights the critical importance of monitoring the implementation of these rights. It also touches on the concept of progressive realization and the practical challenges involved in fulfilling the rights enshrined in the UNCRPD, which should be explored in further research.

Lastly, future research should further investigate the role of assistive technology in promoting participation in sports. Additional areas of inquiry could include: How do policy frameworks influence participation rates and levels of physical activity? How do these frameworks affect the demographic distribution of sports engagement? Is there a correlation between broader policy coverage and improved adoption, participation, and adaptation in sports?.

5. Limitations

A key delimitation of this study is that it relies solely on the content reported in each country’s State Party report. Consequently, the findings may not fully reflect the actual implementation of the UNCRPD within these countries but rather represent what has been officially documented in the States Parties reports. Moreover, this study focuses exclusively on countries within Europe, the EEA, and the UK, meaning the data reflects predominantly high-income contexts.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, while all States Parties reports mention sport in some capacity, the depth and quality of implementation of the UNCRPD in the context of sport varies significantly across countries. Some nations demonstrate progress toward inclusive participation, while others remain reliant on targeted programs or face delays. The limited reference to strategic frameworks such as the Kazan Action Plan further highlights missed opportunities for systematic integration of sport into national development agendas. Moreover, inconsistencies in reporting, such as the omission of existing Paralympic or Special Olympics committees, suggest a need for clearer guidelines and more comprehensive documentation. The underreporting of assistive technology, particularly in relation to sport, is also concerning given its critical role in facilitating participation.

Lastly, future research should examine the progressive realization of rights under the UNCRPD, as well as the role of assistive technologies in facilitating sports participation for people with disabilities.

This research represents a significant contribution to the literature, reaffirming the relevance of the UNCRPD and demonstrating that effective implementation, coupled with transparent reporting, is essential for the full realization of these rights.