You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Disabilities
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

24 December 2025

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

,
and
1
Department of Psychology, Maynooth University, W23 F2H6 Maynooth, Ireland
2
Assisting Living and Learning (ALL) Institute, Maynooth University, W23 A3HY Maynooth, Ireland
3
School of Allied Health, University of Limerick, V94 T9PX Limerick, Ireland
4
Olomouc University Social Health Institute (OUSHI), Palacky University, CZ-7779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic
Disabilities2026, 6(1), 2;https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities6010002
Version Notes
Order Reprints
Review 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 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.
Table 1. List of factors and corresponding country mentions.
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 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.
Table 2. Comparing sport representation in UNCRPD European States Parties reports.
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 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.
Table 3. Types of support for sport mentioned.

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

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

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), whilst the rest mention it in relation to cultural or recreational usage (theatres, libraries, cinemas, tourism, etc.).
Table 6. UNCRPD States Parties reports quotes relating to assistive technology in relation to sport listed by countries.

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.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.M.S. and A.G.; methodology, A.G. and E.M.S.; data collection: A.G.; formal analysis, A.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.G.; writing—review and editing, A.G., E.M.S. and M.M.; supervision, E.M.S. and M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable. This study does not involve human participants. It is based solely on the analysis of publicly available States Parties reports and therefore does not require ethical approval.

Data Availability Statement

Data used for this study is publicly available from https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en (accessed on 9 May 2025).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Disability Language/Terminology Positionality Statement

The authorship team comprises health researchers from sport science, occupational therapy and psychology (including persons with disabilities) with both prior and ongoing research using participatory research methods, conducted in collaboration with people with disabilities. In this manuscript, we adopt the social model of disability as our theoretical framework. Aligned with the UNCRPD, we define disability as the result of an interaction between a person and their environment, with participation limited by societal barriers. Further, consistent with language used in the UNCRPD, we have decided to employ person-first language consistently throughout the manuscript. However, identity-first language appears in the tables because these are direct quotes from other sources.

References

  1. United Nations. General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol. 2007. Available online: https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2025).
  2. European Commission. United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/disability/united-nations-convention-rights-persons-disabilities_en (accessed on 9 May 2025).
  3. International Disability Alliance. Article 30 CRPD. Available online: https://www.internationaldisabilityalliance.org/sites/default/files/article_30_crpd.pdf (accessed on 9 May 2025).
  4. UNESCO. Kazan Action Plan. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Ministers and Senior Officials in Charge of Physical Education and Sports (MINEPS VI), Kazan, Russia, 14–15 July 2017. [Google Scholar]
  5. UN Secretary General. Report of the United Nations Secretary-General on Sport as Enabler for Development and Peace. Peace and Sport Contribution. 2020. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/10/Peace-and-Sport-Contribution-UN-Secretary-General-report-on-SDP.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2025).
  6. Khasnabis, C.; Mirza, Z.; MacLachlan, M. Opening the GATE to inclusion for people with disabilities. Lancet 2015, 386, 2229–2230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. World Health Organization. USAID and International Disability Alliance. In Priority Assistive Products List: Improving Access to Assistive Technology for Everyone, Everywhere; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  8. World Health Organization; United Nations Children’s Fund. Global Report on Assistive Technology; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  9. Smith, E.M.; Huff, S.; Wescott, H.; Daniel, R.; Ebuenyi, I.D.; O’Donnell, J.; Maalim, M.; Zhang, W.; Khasnabis, C.; MacLachlan, M. Assistive technologies are central to the realization of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2024, 19, 486–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Chénier, F.; Parent, G.; Leblanc, M.; Bélaise, C.; Andrieux, M. Using a quantitative assessment of propulsion biomechanics in wheelchair racing to guide the design of personalized gloves: A case study. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 2024, 28, 1398–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Kirk, T.N.; McKay, C.; Holland, K. “A Kind of Therapy”: Wheelchair Sport Athletes and Health-Related Quality of Life. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2025, 96, 426–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Oggero, G.; Puli, L.; Smith, E.M.; Khasnabis, C. Participation and Achievement in the Summer Paralympic Games: The Influence of Income, Sex, and Assistive Technology. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Puli, L.; Smith, E.M. Bridging the gap in assistive technology access at the Paris Paralympic Games. Assist. Technol. 2024, 36, 327–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Geppert, A.; Smith, E.M.; MacLachlan, M. Everyday Assistive Products Support Participation in Sport. Disabilities 2025, 5, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Tebbutt, E.; Brodmann, R.; Borg, J.; MacLachlan, M.; Khasnabis, C.; Horvath, R. Assistive products and the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Glob. Health 2016, 12, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Neuendorf, K.A. The Content Analysis Guidebook; Sage: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  17. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Smith, E.; Borg, J.; Mannan, H.; MacLachlan, M.; Smith, E. Assistive Technology Content in United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Reports by States Parties. In Proceedings of the Global Perspectives on Assistive Technology: Proceedings of the GReAT Consultation, Geneva, Switzerland, 22–23 August 2019. [Google Scholar]
  19. UN Treaties. Available online: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=080000028005883c&clang=_en (accessed on 9 May 2025).
  20. National Council on Disability. NCD Practical Discussions on International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2006. Available online: https://www.ncd.gov/testimonies/2006-10-24-ncd-practical-discussions-on-international-convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/#:~:text=The%20concept%20of%20progressive%20realization%20is%20often,particularly%20in%20countries%20where%20resources%20are%20limited (accessed on 12 May 2025).
  21. Irish Football Association. Promoting, Fostering and Developing Football for All the Irish FA’s Five-Year Strategy 2017–2022. Available online: https://www.irishfa.com/media/11437/ifa-5-year-strategy.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2025).
  22. Irish Football Association. Disability Football. Available online: https://www.irishfa.com/irish-fa-foundation/disability-football (accessed on 1 July 2025).
  23. World Health Organization Headquarters. Global Perspectives on Assistive Technology; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  24. Eglseder, K.; Patria, L.; Demchick, B. Perceptions of Participation for Wheelchair Rugby Team Members: A Qualitative Inquiry. OTJR Occup. Particip. Health 2025, 45, 556–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Hayward, L.; Hogan, D.; Melam, A.; Raine, L.; McCullough, A.; Bell, A. Power Wheelchair Adaptive Team Sport Involvement: Experience, Impact on Quality of Life, and Physical Fitness. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2025, 96, 607–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Passi, M.; Annecchini, A.; Simeon, R.; Cipolloni, M.; Panuccio, F.; Galeoto, G.; Berardi, A. The impact of adapted hiking on quality of life and self-efficacy in wheelchair users: Pre-post study. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2025, 20, 1822–1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Translation and Validation of the Attitudes Towards Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in Physical Education Questionnaire (AISDPE) and the Basic Empathy Scale (BES) in Basque
Previous