Sports Accessibility for Young People: A Tale of Two Cities
Access to sports is widely recognised as a key factor in young people’s physical health, mental well-being and social inclusion. However, participation in organised sports is strongly influenced by financial accessibility. Membership fees, equipment costs and the availability of public support play a decisive role. This article compares Utrecht and Brussels, two European cities with contrasting sports funding models, to explore how affordability affects young people’s access to sports.
Utrecht and Brussels offer an interesting comparison because they represent different approaches to sports accessibility. Utrecht has a strong sports infrastructure, where access is largely organised through student facilities and discounts. Brussels, by contrast, relies more heavily on municipal and regional subsidies aimed at youth participation, particularly in non profit sports clubs.
According to data from municipal and regional sports authorities, youth sports participation in Belgium is strongly linked to local subsidies and social funds, while in the Netherlands, participation rates are higher among students enrolled in higher education, who benefit from institutional discounts. This structural difference shapes how young people experience access to sports in both cities.
Valeria Castaño, a 20 years old student from Brussels currently studying in Utrecht through the Erasmus programme, has experienced both systems. In Brussels, she trained almost daily at a local dance school supported by municipal subsidies. “The prices were low enough that I didn’t have to think twice,” she explains.
After moving to Utrecht, Valeria joined Olympus, the main student sports centre affiliated with Utrecht University. While Olympus offers a wide range of sports, access is primarily based on student status. Valeria pays €22 per month, a fee she can only afford because her Erasmus grant helps cover living costs. “Without the scholarship, I would have had to stop dancing,” she says.
Olympus staff members confirm that student discounts are central to their model. “A yearly pass costs €175 for students, compared to €430 for non-students,” he explains. “We don’t offer income-based reductions outside the student system.”
This creates a clear divide: students enrolled in higher education benefit from affordable access, while young adults who are not studying, or who have just graduated, face significantly higher costs.
Financial barriers also affect younger age groups. A youth football coach at a local amateur club in Utrecht, sees these challenges regularly. “Membership fees are one thing, but equipment is often the real problem,” he says. “Boots, kits, travel costs , it adds up quickly.”
In Brussels, similar patterns appear, particularly during the transition to adulthood. Sarah, 19 years old, is a former competitive dancer, who had to stop training after turning 18. “The youth tariff disappeared overnight,” she says. “The price doubled, and I couldn’t afford it anymore.”
Her experience highlights a structural gap in sports policy. Many support schemes are designed for children, but disappear once young people reach adulthood, even though financial independence is often still out of reach.
The comparison between Utrecht and Brussels shows that support systems do exist, but they are fragmented. Students benefit from institutional discounts, children from youth funds, and some families from municipal subsidies. However, young people who fall between these categories often face limited options.
While both cities have taken steps to promote sports participation, the experiences of students, young adults and families suggest that financial accessibility remains uneven. The challenge for policymakers and sports organisations lies in bridging the gaps between age groups, income levels and institutional structures.
