Co-designing talent transfer pathways in para-sport: a case study

ABSTRACT

Research question:

Talent transfer pathways offer great potential in para-sport yet are underexplored from a sport management perspective. Therefore, this study addressed the questions: What are the facilitators and barriers impacting sport systems ability to support talent transfer athletes and pathways, and how can the sport system improve talent transfer pathways in para-sport?

Research methods:

This exploratory study draws on expert practitioners’ perspectives of para-sport talent transfer through a co-design workshop conducted in 2023 with 12 participants (6 men and 6 women) experienced in areas including coaching, pathways and high-performance co-ordination and management, and classification.

Findings:

Processes for recognising, identifying, confirming, and progressing talent transfer athletes, the provision of para-sport and talent transfer-specific resources, and system collaboration were identified as factors influencing the sport system’s ability to support current, predominately informal, talent transfer. Eight distinct strategic areas for potential solutions were identified to improve talent transfer pathways in para-sport.

Implications:

The findings provide insights to enhance understanding of critical sport system factors in the underexplored area of para-sport talent transfer. Additionally, it offers direction for para-sport managers developing talent transfer initiatives, frameworks, and collaborations, ensuring the efficient allocation of resources, enhanced support and opportunities for athletes, and increased effectiveness of such programs.

KEYWORDS:

• Talent transfer
• Paralympic sport
• para-athlete
• talent identification
• talent development
• co-design

1. Introduction

The Paralympic Games is ranked as one of the largest global sporting events (International Paralympic Committee, 2021). As hosts of the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, many of Australia’s leading para-sport¹ organisations have developed new strategic plans with a focussed objective: to increase athlete success. One such sporting organisation, Paralympics Australia (Australia’s national Paralympic committee) aims to “ … deliver more medal winning performances”, while the Queensland Academy of Sport intends to “enable more medal winning moments by Queensland athletes” (Paralympics Australia, n.d.; Queensland Academy of Sport, 2023). Accordingly, sport organisations must create competitive advantages within high-performance systems, programs, and talent identification and development pathways to develop high-performing athletes that can achieve Paralympic success (Radtke & Doll-Tepper, 2014). Examples of actions include the Queensland Academy of Sport YouFor2032 program, one of the world’s largest talent identification initiatives (Queensland Government, n.d.). In partnership with Olympic and Paralympic sports, YouFor2032 aims to identify and develop talented Queensland athletes toward the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games (Queensland Government, n.d.).

A differentiated talent identification and development pathway to maximise athlete potential and increase Paralympic success is talent transfer (Kean et al., 2018). Talent transfer is an accelerated pathway involving the transition of an experienced athlete to a new sport (Bullock et al., 2009, Rea & Lavallee, 2015). Talent transfer uniquely enables the sport sector to capitalise on the investment made toward athlete development in an athlete’s initial (donor) sport, benefitting a new (recipient) sport through the “transfer” of abilities and skills (Bullock et al., 2009). Talent transfer can occur informally, such as when an elite athlete initiates the process or when someone (e.g. coaches, athletes) recognises an athlete’s potential and introduces the opportunity to the athlete (MacNamara & Collins, 2015; Rea & Lavallee, 2015). Formalised talent transfer encompasses a systematic approach to the identification and development of athletes, usually for targeted sports (Bullock et al., 2009). Formalised talent transfer often comprises strategic elements including the provision of high-quality coaching and equipment, exposure to early competition, financial support, and performance support, described as “deliberate programming” (Bullock et al., 2009).

Many non-para sport organisations worldwide have implemented formalised talent transfer initiatives. For example, “Pitch 2 Podium”, a UK program, targeted athletes from soccer and rugby who were unable to secure professional contracts and directed them toward Olympic sports (UK Sport, n.d.). Conversely, less emphasis has been placed on researching and formalising talent transfer in para-sport, despite demonstrated Paralympic success from (informal) talent transfer (Dehghansai et al., 2023; Green et al., 2024; Kean et al., 2018). Australian Paralympian Simon Patmore serves as an illustrative case, having won a Paralympic bronze medal in para-athletics before transferring to para-snowboard and winning Paralympic gold. Formalising para-sport talent transfer initiatives has the potential to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of this pathway, ensuring athletes are appropriately supported (Dehghansai et al., 2021). Although para-sport organisations confirm a need for formalised talent transfer, a lack of understanding of the factors that contribute to its success has previously inhibited its implementation (Houlihan & Chapman, 2017). Given the opportunity for success afforded by talent transfer may be even higher in para-sport (compared to non-para sport; Baker et al., 2017), further research into how to support talent transfer pathways is required to overcome the lack of understanding inhibiting its implementation.

To assist the development of para-sport talent transfer pathways, researchers have underscored the importance of building a robust evidence base (Dehghansai et al., 2021; Houlihan & Chapman, 2017) and the need for collaboration and communication between stakeholders (Cury et al., 2022; Dehghansai et al., 2023). To enhance the development of this evidence base, the current study adopts a distinctive approach within the talent transfer literature. This approach incorporates multiple stakeholder perspectives, employing a co-design methodology to address two key research questions. First, what are the facilitators and barriers impacting sport systems ability to support talent transfer athletes and pathways in para-sport? Secondly, how can the sport system improve talent transfer pathways in para-sport?

2. Literature review

2.1. Talent transfer in non-para sport

While para-sport talent transfer research is emerging, non-para sport research offers some foundational insight into potential underpinning mechanisms and considerations. Talent transfer is supported by studies indicating athletes can develop quickly, achieve elite-level competition in more than one sport (e.g. Gulbin et al., 2010), with senior success positively correlated with specialisation (training and competition in one sport) at a later age, compared to early specialisation (Gullich, 2016). Collectively, these findings suggest that diverse pathways to expertise, like talent transfer, are possible. In addition, it indicates that experiences in other sports may contribute to quicker attainment of expertise in the subsequent sport; however, the mechanism for this is not yet fully understood. Research in the related concept of skill acquisition indicates that sport diversification (training and possibly also competing in multiple sports) prior to specialisation is associated with enhanced athlete perceptual-motor adaptability (Seifert et al., 2019) and decision-making (Baker et al., 2003), which may, amongst other (unknown) mechanisms, contribute to skill transfer and realising expertise quickly in other sports.

Research focussed on talent transfer suggests similarities between donor and recipient sports (Bullock et al., 2009; Teunissen et al., 2021), talent gaps in the recipient sport (reduced depth of competition; Bullock et al., 2009; Hoare & Warr, 2000), thorough assessment of an athlete’s characteristics and capabilities required for the recipient sport (Bullock et al., 2009; Hoare & Warr, 2000), and deliberate programming (Bullock et al., 2009; Hoare & Warr, 2000) including high-quality coaching (Bullock et al., 2009; MacNamara & Collins, 2015; Rea & Lavallee, 2015) are required for successful talent transfer. While talent transfer research has encompassed strategic and formalised talent transfer programs, there is a notable dearth of sports management perspectives (Cury et al., 2022). Collaboration between sports organisations was found to be a key facilitator in the management of formalised talent transfers (Cury et al., 2022). In addition, distinct frameworks (from other pathways) for providing talent transfer athletes with financial and performance support were suggested to enable faster athlete development and helped address common barriers like lack of funding (Cury et al., 2022; Rea & Lavallee, 2015). Fear of losing athletes, culture around talent transfer, difficulty creating collaborations between sports organisations, and resourcing have been identified as barriers for sport organisations establishing talent transfer pathways (Cury et al., 2022). These findings offer some initial considerations for sports managers designing and implementing strategic talent transfer programs in non-para sports.

2.2. Talent transfer & the unique para-sport context

While non-para sport literature offers some initial insight, contextual factors are known to impact para-sport (Dehghansai & Baker, 2020), limiting the generalisability of non-para sport research. Research exploring para-athlete development demonstrates varied and diverse pathways into para-sport and to reaching expertise (including talent transfer; Dehghansai & Baker, 2020). Compared to non-para sport, there is often a quicker rate of progression in the sport pathway, and longer duration at high-performance levels for para-athletes (Dehghansai & Baker, 2020; Patatas et al., 2020; Radtke & Doll-Tepper, 2014). Impairment type (i.e. congenital or acquired) has been found to influence the timing of development milestones (Patatas et al., 2021). The classification system, a critical but controversial characteristic of para-sport (Patatas et al., 2020), also has a significant impact and can enable or prevent athletes from pursuing a high-performance sport pathway (Dehghansai et al., 2021). Athlete retirement can also be influenced by classification, due to reclassification or declassification (Patatas et al., 2020). Research has also shown the criticality of coaches with knowledge of impairments during all phases of para-athletes’ pathway (Dehghansai et al., 2021; Patatas et al., 2020).

In addition to para-athlete development pathways, recent research has begun identifying key features of para-sport systems and national sport policies important for Paralympic success (e.g. Pankowiak et al., 2023; Patatas et al., 2020). Para-sport systems are impacted by several unique factors when compared to non-para sport systems, including the classification system, limited media coverage, smaller athlete talent pools, low awareness of para-sports, limited participation opportunities, and the use of adapted equipment (Dehghansai et al., 2021; Patatas et al., 2018). The need for distinctive para-sport policies has been acknowledged, particularly for classification processes and integrating impairment and Paralympic sport knowledge across the para-sport system, including in sport science and coaching (Pankowiak et al., 2023; Patatas et al., 2020). While all key policy areas in Olympic systems have also been highlighted in Paralympic systems, research has shown unique distinctions within policies in para-sport (Patatas et al., 2020). For instance, talent identification and development in para-sport also needs to consider the impact of an athlete’s impairment, classification, and social factors on the potential for Paralympic success (Pankowiak et al., 2023). Collectively, this previous research demonstrates various considerations and challenges in implementing pathways and processes within para-sport systems. Furthermore, it underscores the necessity for research that accounts for unique para-sport characteristics. These distinctive factors are important to consider for understanding talent transfer in para-sport. Whilst para-sport research focussed on talent transfer is limited, Dehghansai et al. (2023) provided some initial insights. Athletes’ decisions to transfer to a new sport were driven by perceived advantages, such as enhanced resources and heightened prospects for achieving Paralympic success (Dehghansai et al., 2023). In some instances, classification was found to be the catalyst for transfer (Dehghansai et al., 2023). Factors identified by Dehghansai et al. (2023) for para-sport talent transfer included: accessibility to resources (i.e. coaches, facilities, adaptable training programs, funding, and equipment); the athlete’s ability to adapt to different training structures, environments, and cultures (i.e. training demands, skill acquisition, competitive environments, coach and teammate relationships); and creating open and transparent communication between all sports stakeholders (to understand and set expectations for all involved in the process; Dehghansai et al., 2023). Despite these noted factors contributing to talent transfer opportunities, para-sport research to date has focussed on informal occurrences, with little focus on systematic factors. Moreover, the understanding of how these factors, along with others, are perceived from various stakeholder perspectives to create strategic talent transfer initiatives has not yet been fully captured.

Creating strategic (i.e. formalised) talent transfer initiatives could optimise para-sports’ limited resources, enabling athletes to be supported comprehensively during and post-transition (Dehghansai et al., 2021). Researching these factors in sports management offers an opportunity to contribute knowledge and assist practitioners in designing, implementing, and evaluating talent transfer initiatives. A co-design case study optimises engagement with sports stakeholders, aiming to establish a foundation for formal talent transfer in para-sport.

3. Method

An exploratory case study of Queensland, Australia was employed to address the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Ranked as the third most populated state (20.47% of the Australian population), Queensland athletes constituted 22.91% of Australia’s team at the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games (Paralympics Australia, 2023). Prior to the launch of YouFor2032 talent search described earlier, the Queensland Academy of Sport delivered the Prospecting for Gold talent identification and development (inclusive of talent transfer) program, and in the lead up to Tokyo 2020 was supporting 31 athletes with prospects for the 2020 and 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games (Cury et al., 2022). Due to the current context, demonstrated support of athlete development to Paralympic performances, and innovative talent identification and development strategies across a range of para-sports, Queensland was deemed as an appropriate case to gain insight relating to the research questions.

3.1. Research design

Unique and complex problems, such as that of talent transfer in para-sport, require a multidisciplinary, collaborative, and creative research approach to advance innovative solutions (Örnekoğlu-Selçuk et al., 2022). Further, there have been appeals for greater engagement of sport stakeholders in research (Schaillée et al., 2019). Considering the distinctive characteristics inherent to para-sport and recognising the complexity and multifaceted nature of talent transfer, fostering engagement across a diverse spectrum of sport stakeholders (e.g. managers, coaches, and classifiers) is imperative. Co-design situates users of the research outcome at the centre of the design process and is focussed on utilising their insights to establish solutions, priorities, and strategies for improvement (Vargas et al., 2022). Whilst there are comparable principles to participatory design, including engagement and collaboration with stakeholders, a key difference of co-design is the focus on involving stakeholders in designing solutions, rather than at all or numerous stages of the research (Vargas et al., 2022). Thus, this study adopts “co-design” to characterise the collaborative process wherein stakeholders contribute their expertise towards developing ideas, while researchers conduct other stages of the research (Vargas et al., 2022).

3.2. Participants

Sports practitioners and administrators working with Queensland talent transfer programs and athletes were purposively sampled for the co-design workshop. As this is a relatively small and hard to reach population, non-probability convenience sampling was used to recruit participants through established connections at the Queensland Academy of Sport (Merriam, 1998). Eligible coaches, high-performance managers, pathway managers, or other sport practitioner or administrator in para-sport who have supported at least one successful talent transfer athlete (competing at the national or international level in both their donor and recipient sports) were invited to participate. Purposeful variation sampling was employed to obtain a sample of participants across a range of para-sports to ensure participants with heterogenous experiences were present and rich data was collected (Merriam, 1998).

Of the 17 practitioners and administrators invited to participate, 12 attended the workshop (6 men and 6 women; see Table 1). Due to the broad (system) focus of this research and the experience of the participants, no distinction between sports is presented, and participants are referred to by their respective roles in accordance with ethics.

Table 1. Talent transfer in para-sport co-design workshop participants.

Sport Stakeholder	Primary Role	Organisation
1	Pathways Manager	National Sporting Organisation
2	Sports Administrator	State Academy / Institute
3	Coach	National Sporting Organisation
4	Coach	National Sporting Organisation
5	Coach	National Sporting Organisation
6	Sports Administrator	State Academy / Institute
7	Sports Administrator	State Academy / Institute
8	Sports Administrator	Peak Sport Body
9	Coach	National Sporting Organisation
10	Pathways Manager	National Sporting Organisation
11	Coach	National Sporting Organisation
12	Sports Administrator	State Academy / Institute

3.3. Data collection

Data was collected from a co-design workshop conducted at the Queensland Academy of Sport in July 2023. The workshop was designed with two sessions that focussed on a separate research question and was co-facilitated by two members of the research team (AG & BK).

The workshop was initiated with activities to address research question one: what are the factors that facilitate or hinder the sport system’s ability to support talent transfer athletes and pathways? The first session was designed to familiarise participants with the topic and current facilitating and impeding factors that could be addressed in the subsequent session. Two open-ended questions were asked to stimulate group discussion and obtain relevant data: what are the factors that enhance the ability of systems to support talent transfer athletes and pathways? and what are the factors that challenge or inhibit the ability of systems to support talent transfer athletes and pathways? For each question, participants were provided five minutes to write their thoughts on paper (for the facilitators question) or sticky notes (for the barriers question) before commencing group discussion (30 minutes per session).

The second session utilised co-design activities to integrate participants’ contextual knowledge and experience relating to research question two: how can the sport system improve talent transfer pathways in para-sport? Activities sought to explore participants’ ideas on how talent transfer initiatives could be designed and the required resources and processes. Participants sorted the sticky notes from the first session and then voted for the challenge they felt was most pertinent to address. Participants then worked in small groups and wrote ideas onto posters in response to pre-planned questions (e.g. what is the role of Queensland Academy of Sport in systemised talent transfer?). The final activity comprised a pre-planned question – how might we improve talent transfer pathways? Participants were given five minutes to brainstorm ideas on sticky notes before commencing group discussion and ideation (60 minutes). Throughout the entirety of the workshop, the discussions covered a diverse range of topics, and the facilitators only intervened if the discussion moved away from the focus on talent transfer in Queensland, or if further questioning of a discussion point was required.

3.4. Data analysis

Verbal (via audio recordings) and written data (via photographs of worksheets, posters, and sticky notes) from the co-design workshop were recorded and transcribed. Utilising NVivo, an inductive and comparative six-stage process of thematic analysis was employed to identify recurring themes and categories that answer the research questions (Braun et al., 2016; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Thematic analysis is an analytical and atheoretical approach, used in this study to describe and interpret the meaning of patterns within the data (Braun et al., 2016). This process involved familiarisation with the data; generating initial codes; constructing themes; reviewing themes; defining and naming themes; and producing the final findings (Braun et al., 2016). Throughout this process, the lead researcher (AG) engaged in critical discussions with the research team (BK, DF, RM) to critically reflect and discuss coding and theme development. The two researchers (AG, BK) who delivered the workshop have both qualitative research and industry experience within the para-sport talent transfer context. Two researchers with sport management research experience (DF, RM) have not worked within talent transfer or para-sport. Rich, critical discussions between all members of the research team led to a robust data analysis that was driven by the research questions, considered theoretical connections, and focused on creating a narrative consistent with the dataset (Braun et al., 2016).

4. Results

4.1. Current system factors: facilitators and barriers

Three themes were constructed that addressed the first question: what are the factors that facilitate or hinder the sport system’s ability to support talent transfer athletes and pathways? For each identified factor there were examples of how the factor acted as a barrier and facilitator.

4.1.1. Pathway processes

Athlete-centred processes were a key facilitator of talent transfer and included the recognition of athletes who could potentially transfer, and their subsequent identification, confirmation, and development.

Recognition of athletes in a donor sport and their subsequent identification for a recipient sport was found to be sport or athlete led. In athlete-led instances, participants felt it was the visibility of previous transfer athletes, such as “word of mouth” where “the next person came over … and they bought in the next person … ” (Pathways Manager 1) that contributed to athletes’ recognition that they could potentially transfer. In sport-led recognition and identification, sports practitioners were passionate about providing an athlete-centred approach. For example, “ … the coach recognising that this athlete may be better off in another sport, and not trying to hang on to that athlete” (Pathways Manager 1). Athletes were considered for transfer opportunities when coaches realised the athlete had limited potential for success in their current sport, or anticipated a long development timeframe (i.e. due to the nature of the athlete’s impairment, depth of the talent pool, or length of their teammates careers); yet may have potential in another sport. However, there was no systemised approach for recognising and identifying athletes currently in a sport pathway who may have greater potential in another sport, or for those who have recently retired but may continue their athletic career in a new sport. This was highlighted by Pathways Manager 11 comment “it wasn’t a systematic thing, it wasn’t like, oh, kayaking has somebody that’s retired, therefore, what else could they do?”

For some sports, athlete-centred approaches for recognising athletes within their sport who could potentially transfer were perceived as a risk, reducing the number of athletes in the sport’s pathway which could contribute to a talent gap if the current cohort of high-performance athletes retire. Furthermore, candidates for transfer may provide valuable support in their donor sports to high-performance athletes by augmenting the pool of athletes essential for the effective execution of training sessions and competitions. Thus, retaining athletes mitigates these risks.

Upon commencing the recipient sport, early classification was advantageous and often incorporated as part of talent confirmation to establish the athlete’s eligibility, thereby ensuring resources were allocated towards an opportunity for success. However, limited classification opportunities were a barrier. Early classification was seen as a potential barrier for athletes with recently acquired impairments with the possibility of some natural recovery; subsequently, this may result in a change to their classification and prospects for success. The classification process was also a potential barrier, risking a bad experience due to perceived classification system problems.

Development opportunities, such as training camps and competitions, were a barrier or facilitator for talent transfer depending on their availability. For some sports, integrating para – into able-bodied programs was utilised as a strategy to increase the availability of programs in Queensland. A lack of development opportunities impeded progressing and retaining transfer athletes and could also depend on the athlete’s age; some sports had strong interconnected junior to senior pathways with fewer opportunities for athletes who transfer at a later age, whilst other sports had only open categories, with few opportunities for younger transfer athletes. In addition to athlete pathways, providing coaches with pathways and development opportunities was believed to enhance coaches, and therefore sports, capacities to support talent transfer athletes and pathways in Queensland.

4.1.2. System collaboration

System collaboration was key and was found to comprise how organisations share knowledge and resources to facilitate talent transfer processes. Two sub-themes underpinned organisation’s ability to share knowledge and resources and facilitate processes: Inter-organisational Relationships and Culture.

4.1.2.1. Inter-organisational relationships

Often involving three or four organisations (i.e. the donor and recipient sport, Queensland Academy of Sport, and Paralympics Australia), inter-organisational relationships were a necessity to facilitate talent transfer. Opportunities to connect, share knowledge, and discuss talent gaps and potential transfer athletes were valued. The recognition of athletes as candidates for transfer was typically actioned by donor sports coaches, which helped reduce the perception of “poaching” an athlete. Pathways Manager 1 described how “good connections between the coaches … really facilitated the process of talent transfer” which “shows the important connection within the SIS/SAS [state institutes and academies] networks, that you actually know each other, communicate”. However, these relationships were often formed by chance, rather than by formal opportunity. In these instances, practitioners upheld an athlete-centred approach and sought opportunities for athletes by establishing inter-organisational relationships, despite the lack of formal opportunity. Exemplified by Sport Administrator 12’s assertion “it’s coming down to an individual … who goes I care about this athlete, I want to do the right thing by them, and they find a good partnership to make it work.”

A lack of a confidential point of contact within a third-party organisation, such as Queensland Academy of Sport or Paralympics Australia, that athletes could consult with about talent transfer from a sport neutral perspective was another perceived barrier, illustrated by the following:

Sport Administrator 8: “We’ve certainly had athletes who struggle to have those conversations with their sport … depending on what the environment is in that sport; you don’t know what consequence that come from starting that conversation.”

Coach 3: “And you don’t know if transferring is going to be successful, so you might be stuck not being able to go anywhere.”

In contrast, formalised inter-organisational collaborations to design and deliver participation and talent identification events in Queensland such as “P4G [Prospecting for Gold] or YouFor2032, Get Involved … ” were viewed positively, with Pathways Manager 10 commenting “these have all been quite beneficial for us.” However, they also noted “ … but it’s the lack of understanding … of what is available, what sports might be open to … ”

4.1.2.2. System perceptions of talent transfer

Positive perceptions of talent transfer at an athlete and organisational level were deemed facilitative of talent transfer. Supporting athletes partaking in two sports (sometimes concurrently at the high-performance level) contributed to a positive culture. In contrast, talent transfer culture was negatively impacted by instances of sports and coaches being unwilling to support an athlete’s transfer, and having “that possessive … ‘This is my athlete, I've developed them, our club has taken them through' … sense of the ownership … that unwillingness to let go” (Sports Administrator 2). This sport administrator also noted unhelpful language, such as “ … ‘losing' an athlete to another sport and ‘leaving' to go elsewhere … ”. Participants felt a lack of transparency and celebration of talent transfer contributed to negative culture and perceptions of the donor sport, highlighted by Coach 9:

 … the donor sport needs to be … more proactive in the … positive imagery that they give off. … If … six athletes go to [recipient sport] without [donor sport] celebrating that, then they create something like, “oh shit, what’s [donor sport] doing wrong?” We don’t want that. We actually … want to celebrate that and go … these are the reasons behind it.

The challenge of managing other athletes’ perceptions and relationships, particularly around selection decisions when a transfer athlete may be selected over other athletes was also discussed.

4.1.3 Availability of para-sport & talent transfer specific knowledge and resources

The availability of para-sport and talent transfer-specific knowledge, and human, material, and funding resources, impacts the recipient sports’ capacity to support talent transfer. Participants felt they generally lacked classification knowledge outside their sport, which contributed to uncertainty regarding potential donor sports, and limited their ability to guide athletes towards suitable recipient sports. Understanding the implications an athlete’s function and impairment (relative to their classification) has on performance, and considerations for training and competition were key. Shared knowledge of talent transfer and the para-sport context, including the understanding of classification and “being across the minimum impairment criteria for an athlete … knowing where you can actually send that athlete … if they have this impairment … where is this going to fit?” (Pathways Manager 1) was also integral.

Limited information on talent gaps and sport profiles – within their own sport and across other para-sports – and how to coach to capitalise on talent transfer athletes’ skills and attributes (developed in their donor sports) were barriers. Further, sports practitioners had limited time to invest in gaining the required information due to their focus on high-performance athletes, working across para – and able-bodied contexts, and limited paid hours. Sharing information, educational resources, and expertise across the system was thought to help reduce the need for all practitioners to have all the required knowledge. However, a lack of a formal approach to sharing information was a barrier, as highlighted by Coach 9,

 … if you had an athlete, come to you and go … I’m getting towards the end of my career, but I don’t want to finish being an athlete yet, what are my options? … information about … what is available … there’s no centralised version of that across the country.

Beyond knowledge, tangible resource availability including qualified coaches, programs, accessible facilities, and equipment facilitated talent transfer, but was sometimes limited, particularly in regional Queensland. Participants felt the system’s “top-heavy” high-performance focus results in less resourcing at pathway and pre-categorisation levels (Australian Institute of Sport, n.d.) – where transfer athletes predominately commence. For example, Pathways Manager 10 stated “we had … a top-tier athlete in one [donor sport], and went to literally the bottom, pre-cat [categorisation] in our sport, where we can’t really help to support. So resourcing is quite a bit of an issue there.”

Limited budgets and Paralympic Games quota spots, and increased costs associated with bigger team sizes resulting from talent transfer, were considered barriers by some recipient sports; resources were prioritised towards current athletes, hindering their capacity to support talent transfer. The (limited) availability of classifiers was also believed to contribute to fewer opportunities to confirm an athlete’s eligibility and class. Without classification, athletes’ and sports’ investment (e.g. temporal, financial, etc.) towards development in a recipient sport was viewed as a risk, as an athlete could subsequently be deemed ineligible, or classified into a sport class where opportunities for success are limited.

4.2. Strategies for enhancing para-sport talent transfer

The second research question was how the sport system can improve talent transfer pathways? Eight key themes were constructed that could be addressed to improve para-sport talent transfer pathways and are presented as follows (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Current organisational level factors impacting, and strategies to improve para-sport talent transfer pathway.

4.2.1. Framework for talent transfer pathway processes

The establishment of a structured, sustainable framework to guide the talent transfer process, centred around the athlete and characterised by sports-neutrality is required. The comprehensive framework should be underpinned by articulation of overarching goals, clear processes, and the involvement of key decision-makers. This will help clarify specific stakeholder roles, important in a formalised pathway. For example, Sport Administrator 2 commented “what is the first thing I need to consider when I want to transfer or when I am working with transfer athletes?” Thus, this evidence-based framework should outline “the steps to go through … So, the first thing … The second thing … The third thing … a set of guidelines that if you’re making this decision … ” there are “a guiding set of principles” that direct the processes – the recognition and identification of potential transfer athletes, and the subsequent talent confirmation and development. Participants posited this overarching framework would enhance talent transfer by managing the processes and optimising the athlete-sport dynamics.

4.2.2. Athlete support framework

For identified transfer athletes not presently meeting the performance benchmarks requisite for traditional funding and performance support, the implementation of a differentiated support framework was advocated. For instance, it was discussed “How do we define at what level somebody … is deserving … of that support, because … you’re transferring to this sport, it’s going to be a lower level … you’re currently podium potential [in the donor sport] … how do we support that?” (Sports Administrator 2). Within this framework, a transparent set of eligibility criteria, delineation of decision-making stakeholders (e.g. recipient sport, funding partner), and a review process is required. For example, it could provide identified athletes financial and/or performance support, encompassing provisions for training, competition, and associated expenses, until they met the requirements for traditional pathway support (Australian Institute of Sport, n.d.). Such a framework would “define an athlete who is eligible for talent transfer support … gives us some guidelines around these conversations … ” (Sport Administrator 2), supporting more efficient talent transfer athlete development by alleviating some of athletes’ financial barriers associated with equipment, training, and competition. Moreover, it may reduce concerns among athletes reluctant to transfer from a sport where they receive funding support, to a sport where entitlements are not assured.

4.2.3. Structured opportunities for collaboration

Structured opportunities for collaboration among stakeholders, such as “para-sport specialists … to connect athletes and coaches” (Poster, anonymous) were deemed imperative. Led by Queensland Academy of Sport or Paralympics Australia, sports stakeholders working collaboratively in a formalised approach is anticipated to generate tangible benefits for athletes, fostering sport sampling and greater awareness of transfer opportunities. At an organisational level, formalised collaboration was anticipated to elevate awareness regarding talent transfer opportunities, facilitating the exchange of knowledge and additional resources conducive of talent transfer processes.

4.2.4. Systemised classification

Classification assumes paramount importance due to over-riding implications for eligibility and potential for athletic success. To effectively inform stakeholders on prospective transfer opportunities, there is a need for comprehensive education and information dissemination regarding classification, rather than “what drives [athletes] at the moment is they’ve got an idea ‘ … I want to go and try cycling', and then they find out whether they’re eligible or not.” Rather, “reversing that and going … based on your classification … This is also where you would sit across the other sports. ‘Oh, shit! I’ve never actually thought about that. I want to go and have a look at that … '” (Coach 9). Information regarding minimum impairment criteria and alignment across sports and transfer opportunities, coupled with centralised data management (see section 4.2.6), could further optimise the talent transfer landscape.

4.2.5. System funding for talent transfer

Dedicated funding is imperative for the explicit purpose of talent transfer pathways, initiatives, and programs, where it was acknowledged this funding “must be ring fenced for talent transfer programs/initiatives” (Poster, anonymous). This strategic allocation of resources was anticipated to enable sports organisations to adeptly design, deliver, and implement talent transfer initiatives.

4.2.6. Development of information database and accessible resources

To enhance talent transfer pathways and decision making, participants suggested establishing centralised repositories of information such as “a central database of information that’s got sport … where the coaches are, where the equipment is, what impairments classify for that sport … ” (Coach 11). Widely accessible educational resources targeted at various stakeholders, and aimed at building knowledge about talent transfer, and associated opportunities were also suggested. In addition, dissemination of information concerning talent gaps was foreseen to facilitate strategic talent transfer (see section 4.2.4). Increasing local programs, the number of coaches, and equipment to loan were also suggested to enhance sports’ capabilities for effectively supporting talent transfer.

4.2.7. Athlete-centred and collaborative talent transfer culture

Enhancing the system’s talent transfer culture by promoting an “athletes first” approach (Pathway Manager 1), improving language, and heightening transparency, communication and celebration of talent transfer achievements was recommended. This was considered essential to improve system perceptions of talent transfer, reframing the view that in supporting athletes’ transfers “ … we are not losing you to the sport … ” (Sports Administrator 2), rather “we are giving them another opportunity to prosper in another sport” (Pathway Manager 1).

4.2.8. Coach education & development

Coach education encompassing coaching of para – and talent transfer athletes was deemed essential, in ensuring “[it is] important that coaches understand how to best work with transfer athletes”. This is anticipated to augment the proficiency of sports coaching, fostering opportunities for talent transfer, and concurrently, advancing the development of athletes. For example, for coaches, it may be valuable to understand “what parts can we ‘skip', how can we leverage existing athlete knowledge + experiences” (Written sticky note, anonymous).

5. Discussion

The study examined talent transfer in para-sport from a sport management perspective, aiming to identify facilitators and barriers influencing the capacity of para-sport systems to support talent transfer athletes, and explore potential improvements. Utilising a unique co-design approach, the study’s findings emphasise organisational considerations, addressing managerial complexities and unique factors specific to para-sport. Despite some Paralympic success from informal talent transfer, these results indicate that formalising aspects of para-sport talent transfer pathways may contribute to heightened overall efficiency and effectiveness. This study has built on talent transfer research in non-para sport and extended it to the para-sport setting. The identified current para-sport system factors influencing talent transfer share similarities with previous research in Olympic sports. For example, the availability of resources (e.g. Hoare & Warr, 2000; Rea & Lavallee, 2015), facilitative pathway processes (e.g. Bullock et al., 2009), and system collaboration (Cury et al., 2022) have been recognised as key features of informal and formal talent transfer pathways in non-para sport. However, nuanced distinction lies in how these factors manifest and impact outcomes within the unique context of para-sport. The inherent distinctions, such as the classification system and impairment-specific considerations, contribute to a distinct set of challenges and opportunities for para-sport talent transfer (Dehghansai et al., 2023). Understanding and navigating these becomes paramount for optimising talent transfer strategies and ensuring the integration of athletes into new high-performance sports, ultimately fostering success. Additionally, the findings offer a basis toward solutions for improving and leveraging the potential of talent transfer in para-sport (Dehghansai et al., 2021; Houlihan & Chapman, 2017).

Practically, the findings of this study advance the initial insights suggesting a heightened opportunity for talent transfer pathways in para-sport (Baker et al., 2017). In addition to previously identified catalysts such as plateau in performance or injury (e.g. Rea & Lavallee, 2015), talent transfer emerges as a key strategy to navigate the dynamic Paralympic landscape (Dehghansai et al., 2023). Impacted by changes to the Paralympic program and classification rules that potentially place athletes at a disadvantage in terms of their potential for success in their current sport, talent transfer presents an opportunity for sports to recognise and identify athletes whose skills and capabilities align with recipient sport requirements, including the classification criteria; thus, retaining athletes in the para-sport system. Implementing targeted strategies to facilitate recognition of potential candidates and subsequent transfer in these situations presents a strategic approach that enables para-sports to capitalise on previous investments made toward athlete development and provides athletes with an additional opportunity for Paralympic success (Bullock et al., 2009). Based on the findings from this study, strategies to enhance talent transfer processes, including the recognition and identification of athletes for transfer, may include enhancing system collaboration, promoting athlete-centred approaches, and educating stakeholders regarding characteristics of potential candidates for transfer. In addition, the findings suggest that recognising athletes currently within a para-sport who may have limited potential for Paralympic success and providing them the option to transfer to a new sport where their Paralympic prospects may be greater, could optimise the para-sport systems’ relatively small athlete talent pool (Patatas et al., 2018). However, implementing this approach may pose challenges, including determining the responsible party for recognising suitable athletes, and ensuring a collaborative, system-wide, and sports neutral approach to offer athletes transfer opportunities with the greatest likelihood of Paralympic success. Particularly given that some donor sports may experience adverse impacts from reduced athlete numbers, including reduced funding (Dehghansai et al., 2023).

A comprehensive understanding of talent transfer athletes’ classifications and impairments is key for effective talent identification and confirmation processes in a recipient sport. The athlete’s function and impairment, relative to their classification, play a pivotal role in determining the compatibility between the athlete and the prospective sport (Pankowiak et al., 2023). In contrast to non-para sports which have transferred athletes between sports with similar characteristics in terms skill and physiological requirements (Bullock et al., 2009; Hoare & Warr, 2000), classification is an overarching factor in para-sport talent transfer, superseding (but not eliminating) other individual characteristics. Exploring alignment for classifications across the para-sport system to identify potential donor and recipient sports and undertaking comprehensive performance profiling including impairments for each classification ensures optimal sport-athlete dynamics to maximise potential success. This finding is key for sports seeking to establish talent transfer pathways and illustrates a critical area to advance knowledge and practice. The suggested system-wide, sport-neutral approach is supported by diverse talent transfers observed in Paralympic sport (Green et al., 2024), and represents a shift away from the targeted sport-specific initiatives described in the non-para sport literature (e.g. Bullock et al., 2009; Hoare & Warr, 2000).

The availability of resources at an organisational level including information/knowledge, human, material (e.g. facilities, equipment), and financial, are required to support talent transfer. Like in other sport pathways to expertise, the resource-limited nature of the para-sport system serves as a challenge for sports seeking to implement talent transfer (Radtke & Doll-Tepper, 2014). A unique obstacle for talent transfer is that due to the current system focus, available resources are prioritised toward high-performance athletes, despite the acknowledgement that the provision of resources towards talent transfer athletes may facilitate faster development and success (Bullock et al., 2009). Consequently, allocating resources toward talent transfer and balancing an athlete-centred, sport neutral approach to talent transfer within a performance-focussed system presents a key challenge for sports organisations. The findings of this research reflect previous non-para sport management research suggesting the implementation of policy that allocates resources for talent transfer, and distinct frameworks for the provision of support to identified transfer athletes is required to address resourcing challenges (Cury et al., 2022). As suggested by solutions put forward in this study, the efficient allocation of athletes’ and system resources necessitates comprehensive prior work to establish where talent gaps may present opportunities for transfer, and to understand athlete-sport environment dynamics that promote greater potential for success (Bullock et al., 2009). Additionally, by leveraging shared resources, such as classification information, talent transfer opportunities, coaching expertise, equipment, and financial support, the para-sport system can collectively enhance its capacity to support transfer pathways, ultimately promoting the effective identification and development of talent transfer athletes.

System collaboration arises as an integral component in the establishment of sustainable talent transfer pathways within para-sport, which poses unique managerial challenges distinct from other sport pathways and non-para sport contexts (Cury et al., 2022; Dehghansai et al., 2023). In contrast to conventional sport pathways that necessitate connections spanning club, state, and national levels within a single sport, talent transfer pathways demand the establishment of robust relationships across the broader sports system. Extending Olympic context insights, which emphasised the significance of cross-sport connections at a national level (see Cury et al., 2022), findings from this research propose para-sport system collaboration to cultivate a culture conducive for transparency and sharing para-sport and talent transfer specific knowledge, and for mobilising various resources (material, human, and financial), which are critical across the entire talent transfer process – recognising, identifying, confirming, and developing para-athletes. Further, findings show the involvement of various stakeholders from donor and recipient sports, as well as third-party organisations is essential to provide an athlete-centric (sport neutral) approach, case management, and supplementary resources. Input from classifiers and performance support practitioners, who can offer valuable insights into para-specific factors such as athletes’ impairments and implications for eligibility and potential, and on training and competition, further enhances the complexity of para-sport system collaboration for talent transfer. Consequently, the intricate nature of system collaboration poses a challenge for sport managers endeavouring to formalise talent transfer in para-sport, necessitating a structured approach to engaging diverse stakeholders at different stages of the process, but can also remain adaptable to the unique requirements of each individual transfer athlete and sport environment.

This research demonstrated the use of co-design as a method to ensure sport management research is applicable to the needs and opportunities of the sport system. Co-design has been used utilised in a range of contexts including health (e.g. Slattery et al., 2020), education (e.g. Dollinger et al., 2020), and recently in sport (e.g. Joachim et al., 2022; Maiden et al., 2023). In sport, the co-design approach harnesses the collective expertise of the sports stakeholders (users) to design or improve resources, processes, and experiences. For example, sport co-design research has leveraged the knowledge and expertise of sport administrators to improve ways or working in sports management (Joachim et al., 2022), and enhanced coaching with technology (Maiden et al., 2023). Co-design can help generate stronger stakeholder buy in, higher quality findings, and more impactful solutions that are anticipated to meet the users’ specific needs and preferences (Joachim et al., 2022).

6. Conclusion & future research

Talent transfer represents an appealing strategy for para-sports organisations aiming to quickly enhance their likelihood of success at the Paralympic Games and maximise the utilisation of limited resources. The organisational-level factors identified in this study offer an evidence base that can advance research and practice of para-sport talent transfer. Processes for recognising, identifying, confirming, and progressing talent transfer athletes, the provision of para-sport and talent transfer-specific resources, and system collaboration were identified as factors influencing the sport system’s ability to support current, predominately informal, talent transfer pathways. Utilising a co-design approach, this study effectively and collaboratively engaged key sport practitioners and administrators in the development of key strategic areas proposed to enhance para-sport talent transfer pathways. Thus, this study emphasises key features to consider when designing, implementing, and evaluating strategic and formalised para-sport talent transfer initiatives. It is anticipated that this paper can offer direction for para-sport administrators developing talent transfer initiatives, frameworks, and collaborations, ensuring the efficient allocation of resources, enhanced support and opportunities for athletes, and increased effectiveness of such programs.

While this exploratory study offered a sports management perspective and generated insights on formalising para-sport talent transfer, there are some limitations and opportunities for future research. Further work is required to test the efficacy of the posited solutions for improving para-sport talent transfer pathways. For instance, the development and implementation of an athlete-centred, sport neutral, talent transfer framework. The absence of athlete perspectives in this research also underscores an opportunity for further research on formalised talent transfer in para-sport. In addition, this study did not distinguish different approaches of formalised talent transfer, such as athlete or sport-led recognition, one-off targeted approaches (strategically used for addressing a current talent gap), and ongoing approaches to optimise athlete and sport dynamics across the entire sport system. Future work investigating the features of these different approaches for formalised para-sport talent transfer is warranted and based on this study, co-design is a method that could be used meaningfully for undertaking this form of research within the sport system. Finally, it is acknowledged that the findings are context-specific, with the study focussed on talent transfer in the Queensland para-sport system. It is imperative that further research is conducted to establish an understanding of para-sport talent transfer in different contexts (e.g. geographical, organisation systems). Additionally, it is also worth exploring the potential for para-sport research to inform future research and practice in non-para sport contexts, representing a reversal of the default approach in sport research.

Acknowledgment

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This research is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program scholarship. The Queensland Academy of Sport’s Sport Performance Innovation and Knowledge Excellence (SPIKE) unit and Paralympics Australia financially support this research by providing funding for a scholarship awarded to the PhD Candidate.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 It is important to note that while para-sport and disability sport refer to sports practised by individuals with impairments, disability sport is a broad term that encompasses all forms of sport participation for people with disabilities, whilst para-sport specifically refers to sports recognised by the International Paralympic Committee (Patatas et al., 2018). Therefore, the current study is focused on para-sports with a pathway to the Paralympic Games.