Overview / 03 EU funding

The EU already pays for projects exactly like this one.

Promoting “physical activity as a tool for health” is a named priority of EU programmes — from grassroots sport grants to multi-million health research calls. Our strategy: start small and fast, build the consortium, then scale into the bigger calls.

The routes

Three programmes, three sizes of ambition

Indicative grant ranges

Erasmus+ Small-Scale €30k – €60k · fast, beginner-friendly Erasmus+ Cooperation €120k – €400k · multi-country partnership EU4Health up to €2M · health risk-factor actions Horizon Europe (Health) multi-million · research-grade, needs a university partner (UIB)
Route 1 · Start here

Erasmus+ Sport

Small-Scale Partnerships are designed for grassroots organisations and newcomers: simpler administration, smaller grants, shorter durations. Priorities explicitly include the HealthyLifestyle4All initiative and promoting physical activity as a tool for health. Cooperation Partnerships scale the same idea to €120k–€400k.

Route 2 · Scale

EU4Health

The EU’s €4.4bn health programme funds public and private entities, with action grants up to €2M for projects tackling risk factors and improving health literacy. Calls are competitive and favour multi-partner, multi-country consortiums — which is why we build ours early.

Route 3 · Research

Horizon Europe — Cluster 1: Health

Horizon already funds European research into social prescribing. With the Universitat de les Illes Balears as scientific partner, our pilot’s dataset becomes publishable research — and eligible for research-grade funding.

Route 4 · Local

Regional & recovery funds

ERDF/ESF+ structural funds and Next Generation EU allocations flow through the Govern Balear. A direct conversation with the Govern’s EU funds office belongs in the first 90 days.

The funding strategy in one line

Apply for an Erasmus+ Sport Small-Scale Partnership now to fund the launch, while the consortium prepares a larger EU4Health or Horizon bid with UIB for the full 12-month pilot and its evaluation. EU grants typically cover ~80% of costs and take 6–12 months to arrive — the promoter should plan bridge funding accordingly.

Methodology

Recruitment, tracks and the link worker

Who can join, and how they arrive

  • Eligibility: adults resident in Palma or Calvià, currently doing little or no structured exercise, able to give informed consent. Chronic stable conditions welcome with GP sign-off — they are the population the fiscal case is about.
  • Three recruitment channels: GP referral (the gold channel), gym and walking-group sign-up desks, and municipal outreach — town-hall newsletters, community centres, local press.
  • Comparison group: volunteers who complete the same assessments but keep their habits unchanged, recruited from the same channels. Imperfect but powerful — it lets us say “versus people like them who didn’t exercise.”
  • Why 300–500: large enough to detect meaningful change in wellbeing scores with realistic drop-out (~25% over 12 months is typical), small enough for two municipalities to recruit in three months.

Three activity tracks, one principle

  • 1
    Walk: guided community walking groups, twice weekly — zero cost, zero intimidation, the on-ramp for the least active.
  • 2
    Move: group classes at partner gyms and municipal facilities — swimming, yoga, fitness classes — for those ready for structure.
  • 3
    Train: supervised resistance and cardio programmes — the track where physical measures move fastest.
  • The link worker: every participant gets a named contact who matches them to a track, calls when check-ins stop coming, and adjusts the plan. Across all European evidence, this human role — not the activity choice — is the strongest predictor of people still showing up at month 12.

Governance

Who decides what

Steering committee quarterly
  • One seat per consortium partner
  • Owns budget, timeline and political strategy
  • Signs off interim and final publications
Scientific committee UIB-led
  • Owns methodology and analysis plan — pre-registered before launch
  • Independent: the promoter cannot alter findings
  • Submits ethics application to the Balearic research ethics committee (CEI-IB)
Operations team weekly
  • Project coordinator + link workers + app support
  • Tracks recruitment, attendance and check-in rates
  • Escalates risks to the steering committee
Data protection officer independent
  • GDPR compliance, consent management, breach response
  • Conducts the impact assessment (DPIA) before launch
  • First point of contact for participants’ data rights

Money & measures of success

Indicative budget and the KPIs we answer to

Working figures for a 12-month, 300–500 participant pilot — to be refined with partners. Roughly €250k total, of which EU funding targets ~80%.

0k
Link workers & activity delivery — instructors, venue access, the human core of the pilot.
0k
Coordination — project manager, partner management, EU reporting.
0k
Evaluation — UIB’s independent analysis, plus GDPR/legal setup and the DPO.
0k
App & data platform, communications and recruitment, and contingency.
  • Recruitment KPI: 300+ enrolled by month 6 of the project (month 3 of the pilot window).
  • Retention KPI: 70%+ still submitting monthly check-ins at month 12.
  • Data KPI: 90%+ of active participants complete every full assessment (0/3/6/12).
  • Outcome KPI: statistically meaningful improvement in wellbeing scores versus baseline and comparison group.
  • Fiscal KPI: measurable reduction in self-reported GP visits and sick days among adherent participants.
  • Political KPI: formal Govern review of the dossier at month 18 — secured in writing at endorsement.

Eyes open

The risk register, honestly stated

  • !
    Drop-out. The biggest threat in every referral scheme. Mitigation: link workers, the 3-minute check-in (short enough to sustain), and over-recruiting by ~25%.
  • !
    Self-reported data bias. People over-report virtue. Mitigation: validated instruments, automatic activity data as a cross-check, and a comparison group facing the same bias.
  • !
    EU funding delay or rejection. Mitigation: the bridge commitment, parallel applications, and a minimum-viable pilot (~300 participants, walking track only) costed as fallback.
  • !
    “Industry-funded study” attack. Mitigation: UIB’s independent, pre-registered analysis; GP referral; publication of methods before results exist.
  • !
    Political change mid-pilot. Elections happen. Mitigation: cross-party PNL early, both major-party sympathies on record nationally, and a dossier addressed to institutions, not parties.
  • !
    GDPR incident. The one risk that could end everything. Mitigation: DPO, DPIA before launch, anonymised IDs from day one, health data held on a certified research platform.