As academics, many of us consider ourselves fortunate to have turned our hobby into our profession. The opportunity to work in a field we are deeply passionate about, with the freedom to explore diverse research interests, is truly unique. Collaborating with colleagues from around the world further enriches our efforts, leading to high-quality publications in esteemed journals like the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. The impact and practical application of our work are also highly rewarding, as we work “hands-on” with elite athletes and teams, as well as patient groups and clinical populations. This leadership role allows us, alongside and with the help of highly talented students, to embark on ground-breaking empirical research or projects that can directly assist athletes, coaches, and health practitioners and through these endeavors shape the future of sport and exercise science.

It is crucial to bear in mind that many of these students may choose to apply their research skills in elite sport teams, public health, or innovative environments rather than in a future academic position at a university. In such roles, these former students will likely significantly impact current policy and practices in these environments. For example, former students have gained positions such as a research coordinator or coach in a professional cycling team (eg, DSM-firmenich PostNL and Tudor professional cycling team), are working at the forefront of conducting scientific research for sports companies (eg, On Shoes and Garmin), or have started up their own innovative company (eg, Enduco). With this knowledge, it is important that academic institutions interact and collaborate with these companies from an early stage to better understand the requisite skill sets and thereby pave an easier, more efficient way to secure future working positions.

As academic staff at a university, we also grapple with finding a balance between teaching, research, and administrative responsibilities. While some institutions adhere to a fixed breakdown percentage for teaching, research, and administration, others capitalize on staff members’ strengths, allowing strong researchers to focus more on research and exceptional teachers to dedicate more time to lecturing. Though not yet considered the golden standard, this approach can potentially enhance departmental or divisional efficiency, resulting in more scientific publications and higher teaching quality. The benefits of such a strategy are that promotion prospects can be optimized and accelerated for those who focus on their area of strength (research or teaching), assuming that the conferment criteria are robustly structured for both career pathways and that researchers inform teaching through their research and, correspondingly, that teachers innovate through scholarly activity. This unified and strong collective strategy is likely to yield substantial advantages for both the individuals involved and the institution.

In academia, and specifically in the sport and exercise science field, we are also faced with the challenge of securing funding grants for our research projects.¹ Although it is partially understandable that health-oriented grant applications on matters such as cardiovascular disease, HIV, diabetes, or COVID are prioritized above a sport-science application, the number of sport-science grant opportunities is relatively low. In addition, we sometimes cannot accept commercial research projects, as it is impossible to fit this work into our busy teaching and research load. However, occasionally we are fortunate enough that a talented PhD student or postdoctoral research fellow can assist with such a project.

Another common challenge in academia revolves around the expectation that staff always need to climb the academic career ladder. However, with career-level changes, job responsibilities shift significantly, which might substantially impact an individual academic’s priority and personal enjoyment. For instance, promotion to full or associate professor often leads to an exponential increase in managerial and administrative duties, accompanied by a decrease in allocated time for research. Therefore, academics should carefully consider whether a promotion and associated change in salary outweigh the shift in the job description. Establishing focused staff-development opportunities at midcareer levels can mitigate unintended consequences of promotions and nurture potential future leaders.

The “ugly” side of academia involves the high rates of burnout and mental health issues,^2,3 which can partially be attributed to high workload levels, as well as the overachieving culture within academia, especially among nonpermanent and tenure-track staff.⁴ The scarcity of academic positions globally has fostered a culture in which academics tend to work excessively long hours (60–80 hours per week) in an attempt to outperform other nonpermanent academic staff and increase the chance of securing a permanent post. This unhealthy culture generally is associated with little time for social and family activities, an unhealthy work–life balance,⁵ and the risk of burnout and mental problems among academics. This culture has caused many departments and divisions to source new staff internally, which reinforces the investments they already have made. However, recruiting only internal staff carries the risk of developing a homogeneous research culture without the new and fresh critical academic debate and the insights that a new staff member from the outside might bring.

To address these challenges, academic institutions must have or need to develop effective support programs that align people management and progression with key performance targets, ambition, and profile raising and create and maintain a vibrant and supportive academic environment.