Mapping inclusion and equity in global physical activity and sport policy: a critical discourse analysis of social determinants and target groups (2004–2025)

BACKGROUND: Global policy agendas increasingly position physical education (PE), physical activity, and sport as drivers of social equity and public health. However, the discursive construction of 'inclusion' and the prioritization of target groups within these frameworks remain under-examined. This study analyzes how major international organizations construct discourses of inclusion and equity, identifying the ideological underpinnings that shape global policy norms. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using a methodological bricolage of qualitative content analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), complemented by poststructural policy analysis. The corpus comprised eleven key policy documents (2004-2025) from the United Nations (UN), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World Health Organization (WHO), and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Analysis focused on lexical choices, modality, legitimation strategies, actor representation, and interactions among rights-based, instrumentalist, and health-focused frameworks. RESULTS: Findings indicate notable institutional divergence. UNESCO frames PE and sport as a fundamental human right, prioritizing inclusive pedagogy and equity. In contrast, UN and WHO documents adopt instrumentalist logic, positioning physical activity as a tool for achieving Sustainable Development Goals and preventing non-communicable diseases. While children, youth, and women receive prominent recognition, a hierarchical visibility emerges: migrants, refugees, ethnic minorities, and older adults are marginalized under generic 'vulnerability' categories. The absence of explicit references to LGBTQ + populations across the corpus suggests a notable discursive silence. Furthermore, a persistent gap exists between rights-based rhetoric and concrete implementation instruments, including financial mechanisms, accountability structures, and participatory governance- reflecting the 'soft law' nature of global policy. CONCLUSIONS: Tensions among rights-based, development-oriented, and public health framings limit the transformative potential of global policies. Instrumentalist logic may risk depoliticizing structural inequalities, while public health framing often individualizes responsibility. To achieve substantive equity, policy discourse must move toward intersectional frameworks that recognize target groups as rights-bearing agents rather than passive beneficiaries. Integrating human rights with systemic public health tools- grounded in participatory practice- offers a pathway toward more equitable global policy.