Disabled people are encouraged to exercise to protect their health and independence. Yet many fear that participating in sport could jeopardise the financial support they rely on. This is the Activity Trap, and it must end.

For most people, playing football is an opportunity to exercise, enjoy themselves and connect with others. For some disabled people, however, stepping onto a football pitch comes with a frightening question: could this game cost me my benefits?

Health professionals, ministers and sporting bodies regularly promote physical activity for its benefits to physical health, mental wellbeing and social connection. Adapted football and other inclusive sports can help disabled people maintain mobility, manage long-term conditions and combat isolation.

Yet research by Durham University and Disability Rights UK highlights a disturbing contradiction. Their research examines the “Activity Trap”: the fear that physical activity could jeopardise the financial support disabled people depend on.

The findings are stark. 80% of disabled people surveyed worried that physical activity could put their benefits at risk, while more than one in four reported having benefits or other financial support denied or removed in circumstances they associated with being active. Although these findings do not establish the reasons behind every individual decision, they reveal the depth of anxiety surrounding participation.

This is not simply a question of confidence. It is about whether disabled people feel safe enough to participate in community life.

Grassroots football already presents considerable barriers. Accessible pitches and changing facilities remain limited, while adapted equipment, specialist transport and personal support can make participation prohibitively expensive. Finding a suitable club is difficult enough without the additional worry of losing essential financial support.

The Activity Trap reaches into the relationship between disability benefits and assessments of physical ability.

Personal Independence Payment (PIP) helps people meet additional costs associated with disability or long term health conditions. Receiving it does not prevent someone from working or playing sport. Nevertheless, some disabled people fear that evidence of physical activity could be used to question their entitlement.

Consider someone with a fluctuating or degenerative condition who manages 20 minutes of adapted football on a relatively good day. They may require assistance, frequent breaks and considerable recovery time afterwards. The activity can help maintain movement, manage symptoms and provide a vital connection with others.

Yet they may worry that this brief achievement will overshadow the difficulties they experience throughout everyday life.

Being able to do something occasionally is not the same as being able to do it reliably.

PIP assessment rules recognise this distinction. Assessors must consider whether someone can carry out relevant activities safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and within a reasonable time. They must also consider fluctuating conditions and the effects of pain and fatigue.

Playing football does not automatically disqualify someone from PIP. Nor does participation prove that someone can manage everyday activities without difficulty. The issue is whether assessments properly reflect an individual’s circumstances, limitations and support needs.

The research suggests that many disabled people lack confidence that this distinction will be applied fairly. When people feel forced to choose between protecting their income and protecting their health, a system intended to support independence risks discouraging the very activities that could help them maintain it.

Government and sporting organisations invest in encouraging disabled people to become more active and reducing inequalities in participation. Yet a benefits system that leaves people frightened of exercising undermines those ambitions.

At grassroots level, the consequences are particularly troubling. Inclusive football offers far more than physical activity. It provides friendship, routine, achievement, belonging and the opportunity to contribute to a team. For someone living with a disability, these experiences can be life changing.

We should not ask people to weigh these benefits against the perceived risk of losing the money they need to live.

As the government reviews the welfare system, reform must address this contradiction. Assessors need appropriate training to understand adapted sport, fluctuating conditions and the difference between what someone can achieve on a good day and what they can manage consistently. Decisions must be based on the full evidence of a person’s functional abilities, not simplistic assumptions about sporting participation.

Disabled people and organisations with lived experience must also help shape these reforms. The aim should be a system that supports independence, encourages participation and makes fair decisions without creating unnecessary fear.

Football cannot solve every challenge associated with disability. But it can help people maintain their health, build relationships and feel part of their communities.

A benefits system should recognise these achievements, not leave people frightened of pursuing them. Encouraging disabled people to become more active must go hand in hand with confidence that their essential financial support will be assessed fairly.

A football pitch should be a place of opportunity, not anxiety. Nobody should have to choose between protecting their health and protecting their financial security.

* Jean-François Burford was Chair of the Kensington and Chelsea Liberal Democrats (2022–2025) and former Councillor for Kew Ward in Richmond upon Thames across two separate terms (2010–2014 and 2018–2022).