Gender-Based Violence (GBV), defined as violence exercised against a person because of their gender or that which disproportionately affects people of a specific gender (1) remains a persistent issue in spaces linked to physical activity, physical education, and sport (2–4). The power relations underpinning these forms of violence and the gendered culture of sport have often shaped not only sporting practices but also the institutional cultures of higher education, particularly within sport sciences and physical education teacher education. Such environments may reproduce hierarchies and exclusions that marginalize those who do not conform to gender norms (5). Within this context, female and non-normative students are exposed to multiple forms of gender-based violence, including sexual harassment, objectification, media hypersexualization, and discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation (6, 7). Furthermore, teachers’ lack of training in GBV and gender issues leaves them unable to recognize or act on these situations, thereby reinforcing impunity and perpetuating these dynamics (8–11). This lack of preparation represents an urgent challenge for teacher training and institutional policies in the fields of higher education and sports. While knowledge of GBV is necessary but not sufficient for a person (teacher, student, coach) to intervene in a situation of GBV, it is also necessary to challenge harmful social norms, promote favorable attitudes, and improve self-confidence in the ability to act (12).

GBV is a global problem with high prevalence in sports and university settings (13). It represents one of the most persistent expressions of inequality in contemporary societies (14, 15). It is not merely an isolated phenomenon, but a structural and sustained form of discrimination against women, as noted by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (16). Its impact transcends any specific sphere and manifests itself in multiple social spaces, including those that have traditionally been considered neutral or protective, such as higher education (17) and sport (18, 19). To adequately address GBV, it is important to recognize the root causes of violence, specifically the gendered nature of violence embedded in unequal gendered power structures, gender inequality, and discrimination. This requires a more comprehensive approach that includes prevention measures and efforts to promote gender equality, and a conceptual shift from violence against women to gender-based violence (20).

University programs in Physical Activity and Sport Sciences (PASS) are critical settings where future sport professionals are trained, and therefore represent key spaces for either reinforcing or challenging gender inequalities. Understanding how faculty perceive GBV, institutional responses, and existing equality protocols is essential for informing gender-sensitive sport policies and strengthening prevention and governance structures in higher education.

GBV is not limited to explicit or visible harm; it is often expressed in subtle, covert, or symbolic ways, reproduced through discourse, everyday practices, or institutional silence (21, 22). Sexual harassment, physical assault, discrimination, exclusion, and ridicule are examples of how these dynamics intersect with other systems of oppression such as class, race, and sexual orientation, creating unequal experiences for those who inhabit academic and sporting spaces (23). This intersection of inequalities confirms that the analysis of GBV cannot be limited to simple or isolated categories.

Traditionally, a distinction has been made between physical, sexual, psychological, economic, and symbolic forms (24), but specific types such as institutional, structural, and digital have also been identified (25, 26). It is important to note that these categories often overlap and reinforce each other. The omission of protocols for dealing with cases of harassment or the lack of sanctions for abusive behavior, for example, are expressions of institutional violence that contribute to the reproduction of direct or symbolic violence (27). Thus, rather than a descriptive exercise, this classification offers a way to understand the complexity and persistence of these dynamics in organisational cultures.

Higher education is not immune to these issues (28). Although it is often credited with promoting critical thinking, ethical training, and social progress, in practice, as O'Connor (29) warns, universities also reproduce gender inequalities in their organization, culture, and practices. This contradiction reveals the gap between institutional discourse and everyday realities. GBV in this context is not an abstract concept, as it manifests itself in situations of peer harassment, abuse by figures of power, limited representation of women in leadership positions, and the invisibility of feminist content in curricula (11, 30–33). Furthermore, the difficulties in reporting, accessing protection, and obtaining redress are not simply administrative failures; they reflect mistrust of institutions, impunity for perpetrators, and experiences of revictimization (34). In this scenario, the culture of silence, the normalization of sexism, and the absence of a gender mainstreaming perspective reinforce the urgency of structural and educational transformations (35). Although prevention programs exist, most focus on increasing knowledge about GBV among adolescents and university students, showing limited effectiveness in changing behaviors (36, 37).

The situation in Spanish universities is alarming. Data indicate that 62% of students have experienced or witnessed violence against women, but only 13% initially identified these situations as such (38). Most of the situations of violence identified by students occur between students, not necessarily involving figures of authority. A study with Spanish university students demonstrated a causal link between the failure to recognize violent behavior and the underreporting of incidents (28, 38). Nevertheless, higher institutions can serve as role models in creating safe spaces and setting an example of how to prevent, detect and act in the face of GBV situations.

The urgency of addressing GBV within higher education institutions is now underscored by recent legislative reforms in Spain and Catalonia that have significantly strengthened the legal framework. This development builds on earlier milestones, such as the Ley Orgánica 1/2004, de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la Violencia de Género [Organic Law 1/2004, on comprehensive protection measures against gender-based violence], which established a broad penal, social, and preventive framework (39), and the Ley Orgánica 3/2007, de igualdad efectiva de mujeres y hombres [Organic Law 3/2007, on the effective equality of women and men], which imposed obligations on educational and university institutions in the field of gender equality and training (40). In Catalonia, the Llei 17/2015, d’igualtat efectiva de dones i homes [Law 17/2015, on the effective equality of women and men], also introduced provisions on the integration of gender perspective in higher education (41). Aligned with these foundations and with international standards such as the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (42), the Istanbul Convention, subsequent reforms have expanded universities’ responsibilities. Among the most relevant are the Llei 17/2020, de modificació de la Llei 5/2008, del dret de les dones a erradicar la violència masclista [Law 17/2020, amending Law 5/2008 on the right of women to eradicate gender-based violence] (43); the Ley 3/2022, de convivencia universitaria [Law 3/2022, on university coexistence] (44); and the Ley Orgánica 10/2022, de garantía integral de la libertad sexual [Organic Law 10/2022, on the comprehensive guarantee of sexual freedom] (45), known as “Solo sí es sí”. These laws expand universities’ obligations by requiring structural prevention and reparation policies, permanent training for academic and administrative staff, swift and non-revictimizing institutional responses, and robust support mechanisms for victims (43–45).

The research legislative framework has also evolved to incorporate explicit measures against gender-based violence and harassment. The Llei 9/2022, de la ciència [Law 9/2022, on science] (46) requires public research institutions to include explicit ethical commitments against sexual harassment, revictimization, and gender-based violence, and to establish mechanisms for victim protection and support. Likewise, the Ley 17/2022, which amends the Ley 14/2011, de la ciencia, la tecnología y la innovación [Law 14/2011, on science, technology and innovation] (47), obliges public research entities to implement and annually monitor protocols addressing sexual harassment as well as harassment based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or sexual characteristics. These reforms also aim to dismantle structural barriers in academia and research, including the glass ceiling, gender pay gaps, and vertical and horizontal segregation (46, 47).

Meanwhile, the Pacto de Estado contra la Violencia de Género [State Pact against Gender Violence], first approved in 2017 as a comprehensive framework of coordinated measures, was updated in February 2025 to include new actions against economic, vicarious, digital, and sexual violence, with the involvement of all public administrations and universities (48, 49).

In this social, academic, and legal context, previous studies have addressed the voices of victims in both sports and universities, exploring the manifestations of violence, the reasons for victims’ silence, and the role organizations play in perpetuating this silence (34). Nevertheless, a significant gap remains: the perspective of university teaching staff has not been sufficiently analyzed.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions, experiences, and proposals of university teaching staff in relation to gender-based violence in the Physical Activity and Sports Science (PASS) degree. By documenting university teaching staff perspectives, the research aims to contribute to identify gaps between institutional discourse and everyday realities and to develop evidence-based recommendations for effective prevention and intervention in higher education.

Theoretical frameworks have been instrumental in classifying violence into distinct typologies, thereby facilitating its recognition and treatment. Regarding the specific theoretical lenses applied, various studies have examined GBV using models such as the ecological model (17), the theoretical model of network silence (50), and the feminist socio-ecological model (5). Other scholars, meanwhile, have applied feminist theories on violence, feminist sociology, gender studies, and organizational theory (51).

In contrast, this study adopts the conceptual and theoretical framework of the 7P model. This model expands upon established international approaches, such as the UN and EU's 3P framework (Prevention, Protection, Prosecution) and the Council of Europe's Istanbul Convention 4P model (adding Policy) by offering a more comprehensive structure for understanding and addressing GBV. 7P model was specifically created to address gender-based violence, particularly in contexts such as higher education, research, and sports. It was developed within the European UniSAFE project, which aims to build university and scientific environments free from gender-based violence. The model comprises seven dimensions: Policy, Prevalence, Prevention, Protection, Prosecution, Provision of services, and Partnerships (2, 52). Originally applied in the context of sports and GBV (2), the 7P model was subsequently adopted by the UniSAFE project for application in higher education and research organizations (51, 52).

Based on the UNISAFE (52) definitions, in this paper we used the following conceptualization: 1) Policy, defined as a comprehensive set of policies and guidelines to address violence against women. These include developing national action plans, implementing anti-discrimination measures, and promoting the participation of women in decision-making processes; 2) Prevalence, refers to data and data collection aimed at estimating the extent of gender-based violence and at providing information on its different forms. Data can be collected (with intersectional approach) through surveys or administrative processes (e.g., the registration of complaints); 3) Prevention, refers to measures that promote changes in social and cultural behavior, like induction materials for both staff and students; internal and external publicity and training; 4) Protection is about ensuring safety and meeting the needs of (potential) victims and survivors, with the objective to avoid (further) harm being inflicted; 5) Prosecution and disciplinary measures cover legal and disciplinary proceedings against perpetrators, and related investigative measures and judicial proceedings; 6) Provision of services refers to the services offered to support victims, families, bystanders, perpetrators and the community affected by gender-based violence; and 7) Partnerships relate to the involvement of relevant actors at all levels, such as governmental agencies, civil society organisations, trade unions, or staff and student associations.

This paper draws on data from the two-year research project “ViQuad: A proposal for educational transformation in gender violence in Physical Activity and Sports Science studies.” developed across three universities offering the Degree in Physical Activity and Sports Science (PASS).

The results of this study are organized according to the 7P model and are illustrated and nuanced through direct quotations from participants’ narratives. To ensure confidentiality and protect participants’ anonymity, all names used in the presentation of the results are pseudonyms.

This study contributes to the field of sports politics, policy, and law by examining how GBV is understood, addressed, and governed within PASS university programs. Using the 7P model as an analytical framework, the findings reveal that GBV in this context is not merely an interpersonal issue but a structural governance problem, shaped by policy gaps, institutional silences, and weak implementation mechanisms. The results highlight a persistent disconnection between formal regulatory frameworks and the everyday practices through which sport-related academic environments are organized and managed.

In our study, faculty staff reported being able to identify and witness various forms of GBV present within the university environment throughout their careers, including sexual harassment and verbal, physical, and organizational forms of GBV. Previous research, such as the study by Humbert et al. (2024), indicates that certain typologies, like sexual and psychological harassment, are among the most reported in surveys in the university setting. It is noteworthy that while GBV was initially discussed by participants as a distant phenomenon not prevalent in academia, every contributor to this study was ultimately able to describe at least one case they had witnessed or learned about during their professional trajectories at PASS University.

Prevention emerges as a central but underdeveloped pillar. The results demonstrate that university training initiatives, widely recognized as key instruments for challenging gender stereotypes in sport (54), remain fragmented and insufficiently embedded within PASS programs. This aligns with broader research indicating that higher education institutions often lack systematic, well-resourced preventive strategies capable of reducing GBV prevalence or ensuring early intervention (51).

In sport-related academic contexts, prevention is not merely an educational task but a governance responsibility. The limited training received by PASS faculty reflects a broader policy failure to integrate gender equality and GBV prevention into the core regulatory and curricular structures of sport education. Without mandatory, context-specific training that challenges entrenched gender norms and power relations in sport, universities risk reproducing the inequalities they are formally committed to eradicating. Effective prevention, therefore, requires institutional policies that move beyond declarative commitments and translate gender equality objectives into enforceable educational standards and accountability mechanisms (5, 6).

The protection dimension reveals how weak dissemination of institutional policies and protocols undermines accountability within the university. Although formal protocols exist, teaching staff frequently reported uncertainty regarding their content, activation procedures, and the actors responsible for their implementation. In the present study, faculty members also described situations in which victims were reluctant to report incidents, reflecting not only fear of reprisal but also a profound lack of trust in existing institutional mechanisms. This lack of operational clarity generates insecurity among potential interveners and reinforces a culture of institutional silence, a pattern well documented in higher education governance research (34, 38, 55).

From a policy and regulatory standpoint, protection mechanisms fail when institutional rules are not accompanied by clear communication, training, and oversight. The findings suggest that the mere existence of protocols is insufficient; effective protection requires that policies be actively internalized by staff and embedded within everyday governance practices. In the absence of such integration, protection becomes uneven, discretionary, and dependent on individual initiative rather than institutional obligation, undermining universities’ duty of care toward students and staff (56).

The prosecution dimension exposes tensions between due process, institutional reputation, and victim-centred justice. Faculty members’ hesitation to intervene or facilitate reporting reflects not only role confusion but also a broader lack of institutional support for those tasked with enforcing policy at the ground level (57). This situation reveals a governance paradox: while universities are formally responsible for ensuring safe environments, they often fail to equip staff with the authority, protection, and training required to enact disciplinary processes effectively (58).

The literature indicates that policy instruments such as bystander intervention programs can strengthen institutional capacity by clarifying roles and fostering collective responsibility (59). In sport-related academic contexts, where power hierarchies and informal networks are particularly pronounced, such interventions are essential to counteract normalization of abuse and reluctance to challenge peers or superiors.

In the present study, the provision of services constitutes a critical weakness in the institutional response to GBV. The findings show that organizational responses tend to prioritize the procedural rights and reputational protection of alleged perpetrators, while victim support remains marginal or implicit. This pattern can be understood through gendered organizations theory (60, 61), which highlights how institutional arrangements privilege stability, hierarchy, and collegial protection, values historically embedded in sport governance structures (11).

In PASS programs, these gendered governance regimes shape how risk and responsibility are allocated, often reinforcing silence and discouraging transformative action. Effective provision requires the development of specialized, visible, and accessible support services that address not only emotional harm but also the academic and professional consequences of GBV (62, 63).

Finally, the findings point to significant shortcomings in partnership and policy coherence. Although institutional protocols are formally reviewed in collaboration with external departments and, in some cases, involve referrals to specialized foundations, these partnerships remain largely invisible to teaching staff. This lack of transparency limits their effectiveness and reinforces fragmented governance. The absence of visible partnerships reflects a broader policy challenge: the failure to align institutional policies with implementation networks capable of addressing GBV across the multiple spaces in which sport education occurs (34, 57, 59).

Strengthening the policy dimension therefore requires not only clearer regulations but also mechanisms for monitoring, accountability, and stakeholder engagement. As highlighted by Hagerlid et al. (65), effective institutional governance depends on addressing both cognitive gaps, through clear definitions and education, and trust deficits, through transparent procedures and credible enforcement. In the context of PASS programs, this implies rethinking GBV not as an isolated risk but as a central issue of sport governance, institutional responsibility, and policy effectiveness.

This study contributes to the existing literature by providing qualitative evidence from faculty members in PASS degree, an underexplored context in research on GBV in higher education. The results indicate that faculty members are able to identify the most serious cases of sexual and physical violence and are aware of the existence of structural violence. However, the results reveal a critical gap between recognition and action: most participants reported uncertainty about how to intervene in GBV situations occurring in classrooms or among students and demonstrated limited knowledge of the procedures required to activate institutional protocols. This gap underscores the need for targeted institutional measures that move beyond awareness and enable concrete, supported action by teaching staff.

The consistency between our results and prior literature (1, 13, 28, 64, 67), which identifies athletic contexts as high-risk environments, reinforces the urgency of integrating GBV prevention into the core of sport and physical activity education. The findings show that universities and sport-related institutions continue to reproduce gendered organizational dynamics that hinder effective responses to GBV (66). Faculty hesitation to intervene, often justified by concerns about reputational damage, procedural ambiguity, or institutional conflict (3), reflects broader gendered organizational processes (60, 61) in which protecting colleagues and institutional stability is prioritized over victim-centred responses. The convergence between our findings and existing literature (1) confirms that these challenges are not isolated but systemic across higher education and sport settings.

The application of the 7P model provided a structured framework to translate these findings into actionable institutional priorities. The lack of training in gender perspective and GBV among teaching staff highlights the need for mandatory, discipline-specific education. Universities should implement compulsory training for PASS faculty and students that includes: (a) recognition of subtle and normalized forms of GBV; (b) practical bystander intervention strategies tailored to sport and physical activity contexts; and (c) explicit discussion of power relations and gender norms in sport. Such training should be embedded within PASS curricula and staff development plans rather than offered as optional or one-off initiatives.

The university teaching staff participating in the study were receptive to the topic, highlighting the need for spaces for training and collective reflection that would enable them to identify, understand, and act on GBV from their educational role. The experience in the discussion groups revealed the pedagogical value of participatory and dialogical methodologies, in which the voice of the university teaching staff becomes a central element for institutional and cultural change.

The findings demonstrate that the existence of protocols alone is insufficient. Universities should ensure systematic dissemination of protocols through clear, accessible formats and regular training sessions that clarify when and how staff are expected to act. Such training must transcend narrow legalistic or bureaucratic interpretations of harassment, building instead on practical knowledge and the lived experiences of victims to foster genuine competence in identification, intervention, and the creation of zero-tolerance environments. Establishing designated contact persons within departments and integrating protocol briefings into departmental meetings are concrete steps that could reduce uncertainty and institutional silence.

Universities should develop transparent, victim-centred disciplinary pathways that balance due process with accountability, and explicitly define the role of teaching staff in reporting and follow-up processes. Evidence from this study supports the implementation of bystander and disclosure-response training to strengthen staff confidence and reduce hesitation when responding to student disclosures (57). Universities should establish specialized, multidisciplinary support services that provide academic, psychological, and professional assistance from the earliest stages of disclosure, regardless of whether a formal complaint is pursued. Such services should be clearly communicated to staff and students and integrated into institutional equality and well-being structures.

This study is not without its limitations, which in turn delineate productive avenues for future research. First, the voluntary and self-selected nature of the sample may have introduced self-selection bias, as faculty members who chose to participate may have been more sensitive to or interested in issues related to gender perspective and GBV. This may have influenced the findings by accentuating reflective, critical, and training-oriented discourses, as well as the emphasis placed on institutional gaps and perceived lack of preparedness. Consequently, the perspectives presented may not fully capture those of faculty members who are less engaged with or more resistant to addressing GBV. However, it is important to note that the study does not aim for statistical representativeness but for in-depth, contextually grounded understanding of how GBV is perceived and negotiated within Physical Activity and Sport Sciences programs.

Second, the absence of student voices, particularly those from historically marginalised groups. This omission precludes a wider analysis of how GBV interacts with other structural inequalities like sexual orientation, race, disability, and social class to create differentiated experiences of vulnerability, access to justice, and protection. Future research should therefore prioritise incorporating these perspectives and adopting an explicit intersectional approach to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of GBV in PASS degree.

In conclusion, this research affirms the persistent and pervasive nature of GBV in university settings. It demonstrates that eradicating GBV from the fields of sport and physical activity education demands a commitment that extends far beyond the drafting of institutional protocols. It requires a cultural and institutional transformation grounded in the coordinated understanding and implementation of the seven dimensions of the 7P model. Strengthening and articulating these dimensions enables a comprehensive and effective institutional response to gender-based violence in university and sport contexts. By equipping teaching staff with concrete tools, clear responsibilities, and institutional support, universities can move toward safer, more equitable, and accountable academic and sporting environments.