Securing funding in Sport for Development (S4D) has never been more competitive than it is today. Time and resources remain the sector’s most expensive currencies, yet with application volumes rising and success rates falling, organisations are being forced to work smarter, not harder.

Far too often, organisations find themselves second-guessing what funders really want. At Remedy, we work with S4D organisations to strengthen their fundraising capacity and secure sustainable funding. This research - Commonly Asked Questions by Grant-Makers in 2025 - draws on that experience, combining our internal knowledge with a systematic review of how funders actually operate. Throughout 2025, we reviewed the application processes (forms, guidance notes, and submission systems) of 53 known funders of sport for development interventions. By mapping out the questions funders actually ask, we aimed to create a practical template to help organisations navigate increasingly competitive grant landscapes.

This blog unpacks that research, exploring what funders ask, what they assume, and what this means for organisations striving for clarity in a crowded funding environment.

Why funding feels tougher each year

Grant-making is under more pressure than ever. Application volumes have increased dramatically,  in some cases by 30-50% over the past 12 months,  while success rates remain stubbornly low, often hovering at just 2-3%. 

At the same time, more organisations are being pushed towards trusts and foundations as core income sources, as public funding shrinks and costs rise across the sector. Meanwhile, application processes vary wildly in length, language, and accessibility.

For smaller or community-based organisations, these inconsistencies aren’t just inconvenient; they can be exclusionary, reinforcing inequities in who has the time, skills, and capacity to compete.

Our research set out to answer three simple but critical questions:

1. What information do funders consistently ask for?

2. Where are the gaps between funders’ stated priorities and the questions they actually ask?

3. How can funders and applicants improve practice to create a more equitable, effective system?

What funders really want to know about your organisation

Despite lived experience being widely cited as a sector priority, fewer than 15% of funders explicitly ask about it within application processes, revealing a clear gap between values and practice.

However, every funder we analysed did request some degree of organisational background information. Websites are a key focus, with over half requiring a link, signalling that a clear, professional, up-to-date online presence is no longer optional.

Beyond surface-level visibility, however, questions become broader and harder to standardise. Surprisingly, despite the sector’s emphasis on long-term sustainability, relatively few funders ask applicants to explain:

• financial resilience,

• reserves policies, or

• long‑term sustainability planning.

This disconnect is striking. Sustainability is often cited as a priority, yet rarely interrogated in applications. As a result, decisions may be made without a full understanding of an organisation’s capacity to last.

What this means for you: Even when funders don’t explicitly ask, proactively demonstrate financial thinking, resilience, and realism. Silence doesn’t equal invisibility, but it does require careful interpretation to weave sustainability into your applications. For smaller organisations, this means making deliberate choices about where to demonstrate sustainability and equity thinking, often through narrative sections, budgets, or monitoring frameworks, rather than waiting for a direct prompt.

Project planning: impact vs delivery

Funders are clear on one thing: they want to know what you will deliver and why it matters. Most applications prioritise:

• project needs,

• expected outputs, and

• intended impact.

What surprised us, however, was how little attention is paid to how projects will actually be delivered. Fewer than half of funders request:

• detailed delivery plans,

• breakdowns of who will deliver activities, or

• granular budget detail.

In one case, a modest grant required close to 90 questions, yet included no meaningful enquiry into delivery logistics or sustainability.

Equally notable are the gaps in questions around equity, sustainability, and global responsibility. Fewer than one in ten funders explicitly ask about:

• environmental considerations,

• EDI in project design, or

• alignment with the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

This doesn’t mean these elements aren’t important; they are often assumed rather than examined. For organisations, this is an opportunity: clearly and confidently articulating these factors can set your application apart.

Grant‑making practices: complexity does not equal quality

Only 35% of the funders reviewed offer unrestricted funding, and the majority of this unrestricted support sits below €50,000, limiting organisations’ ability to invest in systems, people, and long‑term resilience.

A consistent frustration among applicants is the burden of applications. Our research confirms this concern:

• There is no correlation between grant size and application length,

• The longest application we reviewed contained 89 questions, yet offered a relatively modest grant, and 

• Larger funders were often less accessible, not more

Global funders, in particular, tend to require more information, rely on rigid online systems, and offer limited flexibility. Only 42% of funders allow applicants to preview all questions before starting, and just 38% provide downloadable, editable templates, small design choices that could significantly reduce time pressure and application fatigue.

The takeaway for funders: many grant-making systems reward organisational capacity rather than potential impact. Complexity does not improve decision-making; instead, it often excludes organisations with the least capacity, rather than surfacing the strongest ideas.

Fundraising readiness: what funders see vs what they don’t

Perhaps the strongest insight from the research is how deeply funding decisions are influenced by factors that sit outside the application form.

What funders see:

• a clear ask,

• a compelling project,

• headline impact.

What they don’t always see, but still assess:

• governance strength,

• leadership credibility,

• staff skills and lived experience,

• storytelling consistency, and

• strategic fundraising approach.

Fundraising readiness is not just a proposal. It is the sum of your governance, people, impact, storytelling, ask, and approach. Many commonly asked questions reflect these readiness factors, even if the language varies.

Key learnings for applicants: prepare smarter, not harder

With success rates falling and application burdens rising, efficiency matters. The organisations that succeed aren't necessarily those with the most resources; they're the ones that prepare strategically and present themselves with clarity. Based on the patterns we identified, organisations can strengthen their funding prospects by:

• Investing in governance: ensure boards are diverse, skilled, and reflective of lived experience,

• Humanising your organisation: funders want to understand the people behind the work,

• Developing reusable core materials: create adaptable concept notes, impact statements, and organisational overviews,

• Clarifying your ask: articulate need, delivery, and outcomes with confidence and precision, and

• Demonstrating strategic thinking: show how projects fit into wider sustainability plans, even when not asked.

In a crowded funding landscape, organisational readiness is often the differentiator between success and disappointment.

Key learnings for funders: designing for equity and impact

Responsibility for improving the funding landscape doesn't sit with applicants alone. If the sector is serious about equity and impact, grant-making processes must evolve to meet organisations where they are, particularly those with limited capacity. Funders can strengthen practice by:

• publishing full question sets upfront,

• offering flexible submission routes,

• simplifying small‑grant applications,

• standardising language and structure, and

• designing processes with accessibility at their core.

Small changes can make a meaningful difference to equity and efficiency.

Looking ahead: from insight to action

Our analysis reveals a persistent gap between funders’ stated values and operational practices. At the same time, it underscores the importance of organisations investing in their own readiness to navigate this reality.

The future of S4D funding will depend on shared progress:

• funders committing to transparency, proportionality, and inclusion; and

• organisations strengthening their foundations, sharpening their narratives, and approaching fundraising strategically rather than reactively.

When funding processes are designed well, they support good organisations rather than slowing them down,  making it easier for impact-led work to be funded and sustained.

What’s next?

• Explore the full report for a deeper dive into our findings; and 

• Use our free Fundraising Readiness Tool to assess your strengths and identify areas for improvement.