Regulation of the Maltese fitness sector

Professionals in the local fitness sector will often refer to themselves as, “qualified/certified instructors”, or, “registered trainers”. These terms are typically used by service-providers with intent to foster confidence among prospective clients, in their general preparedness or competence as professionals. Referring to oneself in such a way, however, begs the question; qualified and/or registered by whom?

This post explores regulation and accreditation of fitness professionals in Malta, specifically those with scopes of practice pegged to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) at levels three to four, namely, fitness/gym instructors, and personal trainers. Fitness professionals have an ethical obligation to refer to themselves in a way that accurately reflects their expertise and scope of practice, without intentionally misleading prospective clients. So in this sense, terms like qualified, certified, accredited, registered, and licensed, warrant some further clarification in the context of their use in the local fitness sector.

According to popular definitions, being qualified means that one is knowledgeable, able, and ultimately competent to perform a given task. It normally implies that one has completed some kind of training course, but does not necessarily imply continued or current engagement in that field. Being certified, according to popular definitions, implies possession of an official document confirming the attainment of certain standards, usually via the completion of a given training course. In Malta, existing professionals have obtained a wide range of fitness qualifications/certifications, sometimes directly from foreign training providers, indirectly from foreign training providers via local satellite organisations, or exclusively from local training providers.

While certification is typically based on recognition by the training provider itself, accreditation implies recognition or approval in a broader sense, typically by some third-party arbiter of standards. Accrediting bodies can be public, private or voluntary organisations that professionals join voluntarily, subject to satisfying certain standards or eligibility criteria. In lieu of a locally-based accrediting body, many fitness professionals in Malta have taken it upon themselves to seek accreditation by foreign bodies, including the Register for Exercise Professionals in the UK (REPS UK), and the European Register for Exercise Professionals (EREPS). Initial eligibility for membership in such organisations depends on possession of an approved qualification, while membership renewal, at least in the case of REPS UK specifically, depends on the achievement of a number of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) points per year. So while qualification does not necessarily indicate current engagement in a given role, accreditation does. Some of the fitness sector roles recognised by REPS UK and EREPS at EQF levels two to four are indicated below.

Being registered implies that a professional is a member of such an organisation, list, or register, and has agreed to uphold various standards relating to ethical practice and a commitment to continuous learning. Being licensed, however, has a slightly different connotation, and generally implies that one is officially authorised to do something. Organisations issuing such authorisation would therefore be expected to hold some form of official status, or legal authority. This term is typically inappropriate in the context of local fitness professionals between EQF levels three and four, simply because, unless they are licensed in some other country, there is no legal framework that currently defines or regulates these roles in a way that a professional could confidently and unambiguously claim licensure. In Malta, the term licensed is more appropriate in roles defined by the Council for Professionals Complementary to Medicine, which is legislatively backed. In these roles, membership is not optional, and somebody carrying out professional activities associated with the primary role of, say, a nutritionist, is legally obliged to register.

In other countries, while it is rare for fitness professionals in roles pegged to EQF descriptors at level four or lower to require a license, it is common for legal frameworks to indirectly oblige them to seek accreditation. Brazil, for instance, represents at least one case where personal trainers must obtain a related Bachelor’s degree, and register with a governmental body. Other countries, including Australia and some states in the USA require fitness professionals to have insurance, which by default requires policyholders be suitably accredited. In Malta, fitness professionals are under no explicit obligation to seek accreditation.

In a situation where professionals upholding higher standards of safety, professional conduct and ethical practice must operate in a fiercely competitive market with those who do not, regulation of the local fitness sector has become the subject of much debate among stakeholders in recent years. Some of the benefits of tighter regulation are expected to include protection of consumers' rights to safety and to be informed about the credentials of service providers, enhanced trust of fitness professionals among health care and medical professionals in the context of referral, and a general increase in standards across the board. How such regulation could be achieved in practice meanwhile represents an important challenge key players in the Maltese fitness sector have yet to concertedly address.