Sports university education and entrepreneurial intentions: A comparison between Spain and Lithuania

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to understand how the nationality and the sport education system could affect the entrepreneurial intentions (EI) of undergraduate sport science students in two different countries.

Design/methodology/approach

A total of 249 undergraduate sport sciences (SS) students from Spain and Lithuania were analysed. The EI questioner questionnaire by Liñán and Chen (2009) was used to compile the data during the 2016-2017 academic year.

Findings

There are significant differences between the sport science students of Spain and Lithuania. The Lithuanian students have significantly higher means in the variables of EI, perceived behaviour control and professional attraction. Moreover, the variables that predict EI are different, and certain path coefficients of the variables are also significantly different.

Research limitations/implications

The sample originates from one university in each country; therefore, these results may not be generalisable to the entire population.

Practical implications

The SS degrees in Lithuania and Spain should follow different educational policies with the objective of fostering EI and increasing the number of entrepreneurs.

Social implications

Creating adequate educational policies to foster entrepreneurship in sports across countries could improve the number of entrepreneurs in the sports sectors; thus, the youth unemployment rate will decrease.

Originality/value

There has been no previous research that analyses the EI of sport science students across contexts through the theory of planned behaviour. Moreover, there are no studies that compare the EI of university students between Spain (Western Europe) and Lithuania (Eastern Europe).

Citation

González-Serrano, M.H., Valantine, I., Hervás, J.C., Pérez-Campos, C. and Moreno, F.C. (2018), "Sports university education and entrepreneurial intentions: A comparison between Spain and Lithuania", Education + Training, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 389-405. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-12-2017-0205