In brief
- Directors of university sports clubs are appraised every year on 100 points, against a published scale: 45 points for sporting performance, 20 for economic and financial performance, the rest for management, human resources and public image.
- Below 71 points means „Unsatisfactory” („Nesatisfăcător”), which can lead to removal from office. „Satisfactory” („Satisfăcător”) two years running has the same effect.
- The activity report is filed by 31 January, the appraisal is completed by 31 March, and an appeal is lodged within 5 working days and settled within 10.
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 710 of 26 August 2026
In force from: 26 August 2026
A director of a university sports club now knows, point by point, what decides the job: sporting results carry almost half of the annual mark. Order of the Minister of Education and Research no. 4.703/2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 710 of 26 August 2026, approves the methodology for the annual appraisal of individual professional performance of directors of university sports clubs. It is the ministry’s fourth act of the same day, after the one on the commission that proposes the number of study places.
The methodology applies directly to the clubs subordinated to the ministry. For the clubs subordinated to universities it is a reference model, which may be adapted and adopted by a decision of the university senate, in keeping with university autonomy.
The legal basis is the framework regulation on the organisation and operation of student sports clubs, approved by Order of the Minister of Education, Research, Youth and Sport no. 3.696/2012.
What it changes in practice
The first effect is the calendar. The appraisal covers a calendar year and is carried out between 1 January and 31 March of the following year, only for directors who actually worked at least 6 months in the year under appraisal.
The second effect is the partial appraisal. It is carried out outside that window when the employment relationship ends, is suspended or is amended, provided the period actually worked is at least 30 consecutive calendar days, within 10 working days of the event, and it is taken into account at the next annual appraisal.
The third effect is the make-up of the panels. The appraisal panel has a chair and 2 members, designated by order of the minister. The appeals panel likewise has a chair and 2 members, who must be persons other than those on the appraisal panel.
The fourth effect is the scale. The five management objectives carry fixed scores: strategic management 15 points, sporting performance 45, economic and financial management 20, human resources and internal managerial control 10, institutional development and public image 10. A total of 100.
The fifth effect is the way marks are given. For each performance indicator the panel awards between 0 and 100 per cent of the maximum score allocated, and the final score is the sum of the five objectives, which cannot exceed 100.
The sixth effect is the ratings: 91-100 Very good („Foarte bine”), 81-90 Good („Bine”), 71-80 Satisfactory, below 71 Unsatisfactory. For the last two the panel is required to set out recommendations and improvement measures.
The seventh effect is the harshest. „Unsatisfactory” may be grounds for removal from office by order of the minister. „Satisfactory” obtained two years in a row has the same effect.
The eighth effect is the appeal procedure. The result is communicated within 5 working days of the appraisal being completed, the director may appeal within 5 working days of that communication, and the appeal is settled within 10 working days. The result is final in administrative terms and may be challenged before the administrative court.
The ninth effect is the burden of proof. The director draws up the activity report by 31 January and files it together with supporting documents. The panel examines only the documents relating to the period under appraisal and may ask for clarifications and further documents where those filed do not allow an indicator to be verified in full.
What has changed compared with the previous situation
The first change is that the appraisal now has a published scale. Until now, the 2012 framework regulation provided for the post of director, but not for the numerical criteria by which the work is measured each year.
The second change is the separation of the panels. An appeal can no longer reach the same people who gave the mark: the methodology expressly forbids any overlap.
The third change concerns the weightings. Sporting performance on its own is worth 45 points out of 100, and within it the results obtained in competitions carry 25. In other words, a quarter of a director’s mark depends directly on the club’s medals.
The fourth change is about the money. Execution of the revenue and expenditure budget, in the capacity of tertiary authorising officer, and the attracting of own revenue each bring 10 points, so a fifth of the mark.
The fifth change is archiving. All the documents of the procedure are kept by the School and University Sports Federation, not by the club and not by the ministry.
What does not change is university autonomy. Clubs subordinated to universities are not obliged to apply the methodology; they may adopt it, in adapted form, by a decision of the senate.
Advantages and disadvantages
What it improves
- The director knows in advance what the mark is given for and with what documents it can be supported.
- The appeals panel must be made up of persons other than those on the appraisal panel.
- The deadlines are short and fixed: 5 days for communication, 5 for the appeal, 10 for it to be settled.
- Poor ratings oblige the panel to set out recommendations, not merely to penalise.
- The outcome of the appeal may be challenged before the administrative court, so the procedure does not end at the administrative door.
- The partial appraisal prevents the loss of the period worked by a director who leaves in the middle of the year.
What remains a problem
- The scale in the appraisal form contradicts its own headings for two of the five objectives.
- A quarter of the mark comes from sporting results, with no correction for the size of the club or for the budget available.
- The methodology does not say what happens to a director who has been in post for less than 6 months of the year under appraisal.
- The panel settles „any unforeseen situation”, an open-ended clause in a procedure that can end in removal from office.
- There is no minimum threshold per objective, so a director can score zero on sporting performance and still stay above 71 points by taking the maximum everywhere else.
- The percentage score per indicator, between 0 and 100 per cent, has no written criteria, so the appraisal remains discretionary inside each heading.
Practical advice
- If you are the director of a university sports club, file the activity report by 31 January. That is the deadline in the methodology, not a recommendation.
- Attach supporting documents for each of the ten indicators. The panel examines only the documents relating to the period under appraisal.
- Structure the report around the five objectives, in the order set out in Annex no. 1. The form has separate headings for activities carried out, results and supporting documents.
- Watch the weightings when you plan your year: sporting results in competitions are worth 25 points, the most of any indicator.
- If you are not satisfied with the mark, appeal within 5 working days of the communication, using the template in Annex no. 3, stating the score awarded and the score sought for each indicator challenged.
- If you receive „Satisfactory”, treat the panel’s recommendations as a work plan: the same rating two years running can lead to removal from office.
- If you leave the post during the year, ask for a partial appraisal. It is carried out within 10 working days if you worked at least 30 consecutive days.
- If you are a rector, bear in mind that the methodology is only a reference model for the university’s club. Adopting it is done by a decision of the senate and it may be adapted.
Frequently asked questions
Who is appraised?
When does the appraisal take place?
How is the mark calculated?
What are the ratings?
What happens on a poor rating?
How do I challenge the result?
Is the outcome of the appeal final?
Where are the documents kept?
Errors and inconsistencies in the published text
- Annex no. 2 to the methodology, the appraisal scale: the headings of two objectives contradict the scores in the same table and in the body of the methodology. The heading of the first objective in the scale reads „Obiectivul I. Management strategic și organizarea activității clubului (20 de puncte)”, that is, Objective I. Strategic management and organisation of the club’s activity (20 points), but the three indicators below it are worth 5 points each, and the row „Subtotal obiectivul I” in the same table shows 15. The heading of the second reads „Obiectivul II. Performanță sportivă (40 de puncte)”, that is, Objective II. Sporting performance (40 points), while its indicators add up to 5 plus 15 plus 25, and the subtotal shows 45. The summary table at the end of the scale confirms 15 and 45, as does Article 12 of the methodology, which expressly provides 15 points for objective I and 45 for objective II. The panel fills in this very form, and 5 points moved from one objective to another can decide the step between „Satisfactory” and „Good”, or between „Unsatisfactory” and „Satisfactory”, that is, between keeping the post and losing it.
Editorial analysis
The methodology fills a long-standing gap. University sports clubs operate under a framework regulation dating from 2012, and their directors were appraised without a published scale. The new text makes the procedure predictable: five objectives, ten indicators, fixed scores, short deadlines, two separate panels and a route to the administrative court. The rule that the members of the appeals panel must be persons other than those who gave the mark looks obvious, yet it is missing from many Romanian administrative procedures.
The weak point is the very form the panel fills in. The scale in Annex no. 2 contradicts its own subtotals on two objectives out of five. This is not an error without consequence: the rating thresholds sit at 71, 81 and 91 points, and the difference of 5 points between the two readings can move a director from one category into another. All the more so since Articles 20 and 21 tie poor ratings directly to removal from office.
The second observation concerns the fairness of the scale. Sporting results in domestic and international competitions are worth 25 points, a quarter of the mark, with no adjustment for the size of the club, the number of sections or the budget available. The director of a small club, with two sections and modest funding, is measured with the same ruler as the director of a large one. The methodology does have an indicator for attracting own revenue, which is right, but it does not make up for the difference in starting conditions.
The third observation is about the margin of appreciation. Article 14 leaves the panel free to award between 0 and 100 per cent of the score for each indicator, with no written criteria. The „Motivarea comisiei” column in the form helps, because it forces a justification, but it is no substitute for a marking guide. In a procedure that can end with the loss of the post, wide discretion on every heading is hard to challenge to any effect.
What should be changed
- Correcting the headings of objectives I and II in the scale of Annex no. 2, to 15 and 45 points. The form would then be consistent with its own subtotals, with the summary table and with Article 12 of the methodology.
- An indicative marking guide for the percentages awarded on each indicator. Without one, the same achievement can receive 40 or 90 per cent from different panels, and an appeal has nothing to stand on.
- Weighting of sporting results by the size of the club and the budget allocated. The 25 points for medals now measure the starting conditions as well, not only the work of the director.
- An express rule for directors with less than 6 months in post in the year under appraisal. The methodology excludes them from the annual appraisal, but says nothing about the period worked if they do not qualify for the partial appraisal either.
- Narrowing the clause in Article 23, which leaves the panel any unforeseen situation. In a procedure that can lead to removal from office, unforeseen situations should be settled by the body that issued the methodology, not by the body that carries out the appraisal.
Original text of the legal act
The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.
The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania
Official Gazette of Romania no. 710 of 26 August 2026 8 pages PDF, 74 KB the act starts on page 3
Open the official PDFDownload the PDF
The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.