Social Protection of Elite Athletes in Poland – Key Findings from the ISG Workshop within the SOPROS Project
On 17 October 2025, the Institute for Sport Governance hosted a workshop dedicated to the social protection of elite athletes in Poland. The meeting was organised as part of the international project SOPROS – Assessing, Evaluating and Implementing Athletes’ Social Protection in Olympic Sports, coordinated by the German Sport University Cologne.
The event gathered representatives of key institutions shaping the social protection system for athletes in Poland, including the Ministry of Sport and Tourism, the Polish Olympic Committee, the University of Physical Education in Warsaw, the Academic Sports Association, the Polish Yachting Association, the Basketball Players’ Trade Union, the Wybiegaj w Przyszłość Foundation, the Institute of Sport, and the National Labour Inspectorate. The discussion was moderated by PhD Paweł Zembura from the Institute for Sport Governance.
The status of scholarship athletes and systemic challenges
One of the main topics discussed was the status of scholarship athletes and its implications for social protection. Participants pointed out that in Poland, elite athletes operate in a specific legal context – they benefit from selected forms of protection (e.g., Olympic allowances, accident insurance (NNW – insurance against the consequences of personal accidents), and maternity scholarships) that to some extent replace the provisions of the Labour Code.
However, some experts argued that it would be more beneficial for athletes if their relationship with the state or a sports federation were recognised as an employment relationship, which would guarantee them job stability, health insurance, and greater security in the event of injury. A representative of the National Labour Inspectorate noted that scholarships currently have an administrative rather than employment character, which limits the possibility of challenging them as employment contracts.
The role of universities and dual career pathways
Another key point of discussion was the role of higher education institutions and academic organisations in supporting athletes. Representatives of the University of Physical Education in Warsaw presented solutions designed for student-athletes, such as rector’s scholarships, dormitory fee reductions, and flexible study plans within the National Academic Representation programme.
Participants highlighted the increasing openness of universities towards athletes but also the ongoing challenge of ensuring their genuine participation in the educational process. It was emphasised that flexibility in studying is essential for dual career development, and its absence may discourage athletes from continuing their education.
The military model and its limitations
The Central Military Sports Team (CWZS) was identified as an example of a comprehensive social protection model, providing athletes with regular salaries, pension schemes, and health insurance. This solution is considered attractive and stable—especially given that around 60% of athletes continue their careers within the armed forces after retirement from sport. At the same time, participants pointed out the limited scope of CWZS (approximately 220 athletes) and the lack of transparent recruitment criteria.
The gap between junior and senior categories
One of the most challenging transitions in an athlete’s career is the move from the junior to the senior category. During this period, athletes often lose certain benefits (such as student status or tax exemptions) while facing increasing financial demands. Workshop participants underlined the lack of “transition mechanisms” that would allow young athletes to remain within the support system during their progression to professional sport.
Athlete representation and sports governance
The discussion also addressed the representation of athletes within sports federations. It was noted that in many organisations, athletes’ commissions exist only formally, and active athletes have limited influence over decision-making processes.
Experts called for the introduction of more democratic mechanisms for electing athlete representatives and for greater transparency in governance structures. Strengthening the athlete voice was recognised as a key step towards better alignment between support systems and athletes’ real needs.
Maternity benefits and the role of local governments
In the context of athlete welfare, maternity benefits were highlighted as an important issue. Participants compared the differences between national legislation and local government practices — with the City of Warsaw cited as an example of offering more favourable scholarship conditions. The discussion pointed to the need to harmonise the rules for granting benefits nationwide, especially in light of the ongoing amendment to the Act on Sport.
Shared responsibility for the protection system
The final part of the discussion focused on financing social protection for athletes. It was emphasised that most Polish sports federations rely heavily on public funding, which limits their flexibility in providing additional social benefits. In this context, reference was made to the SOPROS Manifesto, which calls for organisations benefiting economically from athletes’ performances to share responsibility for their social protection – though in Poland, this would apply mainly to a small number of professional sports disciplines.
Next steps: developing recommendations
The workshop held within the SOPROS project marked an important stage in analysing the athlete social protection system in Poland. The insights and conclusions gathered during the event will contribute to the development of practical recommendations and implementation tools aimed at helping sports organisations and policymakers build a more coherent, secure, and equitable support system.
Read the SOPROS report to learn more!
Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.
