A Network of Fragmented Faculties

School of Sports Science: Understanding the Human Problem

There is no shortage of sports science, kinesiology and physiotherapy faculties, but typically, they tend to view sports technology through the lens of the human body.

Their curricula cover biomechanics, exercise physiology, metabolism and rehabilitation. Graduates are trained to assess movement, understand its health benefits, performance limiters, and preventing injuries. 

Students learn to use performance analysis tools, sensors and wearables. The result is strong domain expertise, but a potential lack of exposure to product development and technical fluency. 

School of Engineering: Building Solutions

Engineering programs typically think of sports technology in terms of tools, systems and infrastructure. Their curricula cover sensors, materials, AI, data science, biomechanics and product design, with a focus on building accurate, efficient and reliable products.

Sports engineering programs are typically housed within mechanical engineering schools and offered as postgraduate specialisations. This model – observed at institutions like Purdue, Villanova and the University of Miami for instance – risks a limitation: sport is almost always the application, not the core discipline. 

And this has consequences. Engineers are often trained to optimize for precision but without field time, engineering schools risk producing sophisticated technologies – not necessarily better Sportstech.

School of Management: Sports Technologies as a Business

Business and management schools frame Sportstech as a commercial opportunity. Their programs specialize in event organization, league governance, athlete representation, sponsorship, and media rights. 

Within this framework, technologies are enablers of engagement, operational efficiency and revenue generation, rather than a study topic in their own right.

The risk with this orientation is that sports performance gets valued for its commercial potential before its athletic merit.

CONNECTION MATTERS

Sports technology is finding a place in universities worldwide, but it is still usually taught through individual faculties. Integrated curricula remain the exception.

That’s not inherently a problem: Sportstech needs specialists, and disciplinary depth is a strength. The risk is graduating without a working understanding of how that expertise connects to the broader Sportstech ecosystem.

Cross-disciplinary education doesn’t mean every student must master science, engineering and business. It means helping them understand how those fields intersect, and where their expertise fits.

Disciplinary boundaries can be made more permeable through postgraduate programs, cross-faculty schools, or closer industry collaborations.

Building the connective layer

Some institutions are assembling pieces of that model. Loughborough brings sports science, engineering, and management under one roof, while KTH Stockholm offers a dedicated master’s program in Sportstech.

Elsewhere, EPFL-AISTS and Pôle Sports at HEC Montréal are pulling academics, industry, and investment leaders into the same room; KU Leuven Institute of sports science or Ghent Sports science lab are creating cross-faculty research environments; talent hubs extend this work beyond the curriculum and into the practical real-world.

The bar for passing in Sportstech has risen and novelty alone won’t earn top marks. The sector now rewards well-designed, usable products grounded in sound science and brought to market with precision.