![[Translate to English:]](/fileadmin/_processed_/b/c/csm_BvOF_2020_0122_BNQ_Jaimini_Boender_55357a6147.jpg)
- Sports
- 22/04/2025
Government puts an end to low-cost sporting activities
Higher education institutions should no longer provide reduced-rate sports facilities, as the government believes this distorts the market. Cultural activities and canteen prices are also set to rise, among other things. “There are many reasons why this is a bad idea,” says Patrick Groothuis, vice president of TU/e.
According to the rules, public funds must not be used to finance private activities. Therefore, higher education institutions are prohibited from using taxpayers’ money to establish commercial services, since this would constitute ‘state aid’.
Yet, there are always grey areas. How strictly should this principle be applied? The Ministry of Education has altered the rules and will enforce them more rigorously starting in 2026. This promises to impose significant constraints compared to the previous situation.
For many years, research universities and large universities of applied sciences have offered their own sports facilities, allowing students and staff to engage in sports inexpensively. They also frequently have their own theatres, which can be used either for free or at a minimal charge. Additionally, canteen prices are typically lower than those found in town.
“Catering and sports facilities, for example, are in principle private amenities”, the Ministry of Education has written to all secondary vocational, higher professional education and university governing bodies. According to the letter, facilities ranging from sports halls to canteens cannot be offered to students and staff “on a voluntary basis, free of charge, or at a minimal fee”. Consequently, prices will soon have to increase.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Education says: “Educational institutions can invest in sports facilities, but must then charge students a market rate to use them.”
A Bad Idea
“There are many reasons why this is a bad idea,” says TU/e vice president Patrick Groothuis. “In particular, pricing student sports facilities at market rates will have negative consequences for the Netherlands. The academic pressure on students is already extremely high, and sports give them a chance to recharge, relax, and connect with fellow students. We consider sports a basic necessity for student well-being, which is why we invest so heavily in it.”
With market-based pricing, many students - especially those from lower-income families - may no longer be able to afford sports, Groothuis warns. “That will impact academic performance and hurt our university community. We get the impression the minister is trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist - at the expense of student well-being.”
Groothuis also points out that just three years ago, universities received funding through the National Education Program to improve student well-being with free sports activities. Now, to his astonishment, The Hague is taking a complete U-turn. He also finds the cost-price argument puzzling: “Across the Netherlands, municipalities allow sports clubs to use fields below cost - for good reason. But for students, that’s not allowed? That’s impossible to justify.”
Personal Development
The law does allow universities to take account of the “personal development of students”. However, the ministry spokesperson notes, the practical application of this has been increasingly clearly defined in recent years. “For instance, it has been clarified that sports facilities do not fall under this category.” The same will apply to cultural activities, from lecture series to creative courses. “These may be offered, provided the pricing is market-based.”
There are a few limited exceptions. The policy document names honors programs, studium generale initiatives and libraries as examples of activities and facilities that “promote the accessibility and quality of publicly funded education”.
Ruben Puylaert, spokesperson for the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (UNL), warns that stricter interpretation could also have implications for university museums, knowledge valorisation and continuing education as part of lifelong learning. TU/e’s Vice President sees that too: “Our third core task - valorization - isn’t helped by this either. Soon we’ll have to start sending hefty bills to student start-ups. That completely undermines entrepreneurship and innovation.”
Social bonding
UNL opposes the new interpretation on behalf of all universities. “We view these activities as integral to our public mission,” says Puylaert. “This new interpretation could certainly mean that these facilities will disappear.”
The strict interpretation is also incorrect, UNL believes. As the then Secretary of State (and later Prime Minister) Mark Rutte (VVD) wrote in 2005: the provision of facilities for students is permissible “if it serves to foster social bonding and a conducive study environment, thus positively impacting student success rates”.
Groothuis refers to the Netherlands as “Administrative Country”. “This policy adds yet another layer of bureaucracy to universities, even though this very minister promised to reduce administrative burdens in higher education. In short, there are many reasons why this is a bad idea. We therefore call on the minister to reconsider this policy.”
Discussion