Contents
- Fitness equipment imports statistics: EU import values and trends
- EU sporting-goods imports by product
- Where EU sporting-goods imports come from
- National import figures and the equipment mix
- How national import trends differed
- What sporting-goods trade statistics include and exclude
- Sources
Fitness equipment imports statistics: EU import values and trends
The most useful available figures for fitness equipment imports statistics come from Eurostat’s broader sporting-goods trade series. That distinction matters: the published totals cover a range of sporting goods and do not isolate treadmills, weights, resistance machines or other home-gym products.
In 2025, the European Union imported €11.8 billion in sporting goods from countries outside the EU. Extra-EU exports were €7.2 billion, leaving a €4.7 billion trade deficit in this product grouping. Compared with 2020, extra-EU imports rose 16.3%, an increase of €1.7 billion. The corresponding export increase was 11.4%, so imports grew faster over the five-year comparison.
| EU trade with non-EU countries | 2025 value or change |
|---|---|
| Sporting-goods imports | €11.8 billion |
| Sporting-goods exports | €7.2 billion |
| Trade deficit | €4.7 billion |
| Import change, 2020–2025 | +16.3% (+€1.7 billion) |
The annual path was not a steady climb. Extra-EU sporting-goods imports fell by €3.6 billion from 2022 to 2023, then rose by €0.2 billion from 2023 to 2024 and by €0.9 billion from 2024 to 2025. These reported changes show a sharp decline followed by two increases, but they do not identify what caused the shifts. The longer-term 2020–2025 comparison and the year-to-year movements describe different parts of the trend.
Source for this section: Eurostat, “International trade in sporting goods”, pp. 1, 3.
EU sporting-goods imports by product
The closest product measure to gym equipment in the report is the combined category “gymnastic, athletic and swimming equipment.” It accounted for 27.6% of EU sporting-goods imports from outside the Union in 2025. Its extra-EU import value increased by €486 million between 2020 and 2025, the largest absolute increase among the product categories discussed by Eurostat.
Sports footwear was the largest category, representing 29.4% of extra-EU sporting-goods imports in 2025. Together, footwear and gymnastic, athletic and swimming equipment made up 57.0% of the total. That concentration shows that these two broad categories accounted for more than half of the measured import value; it does not mean that fitness machines alone represented 27.6%.
The product label groups several kinds of equipment together. Eurostat says its sporting-goods classification is built from six-digit Harmonized System (HS) codes and organizes the selected products into 13 groups. The equipment grouping includes gymnastic, athletic and swimming goods, so the published percentage cannot be treated as a precise share for exercise equipment used at home or in commercial gyms.
Source for this section: Eurostat, “International trade in sporting goods”, pp. 2, 8, 13.
Where EU sporting-goods imports come from
Among the EU’s sporting-goods imports from outside the Union, China supplied 22.0% of the value in 2025 and Vietnam supplied 19.1%. China’s share was 3.2 percentage points higher than in 2020; Vietnam’s was up 5.4 percentage points. These are shares of extra-EU imports across the covered sporting-goods categories, not supplier shares for fitness equipment alone.
Other reported partners had smaller shares. Indonesia accounted for 4.8%, while the United Kingdom accounted for 4.6% in 2025. The UK share had fallen from 10.4% in 2020. Comparing these percentages indicates a change in the composition of extra-EU supply, but the figures alone do not explain why partners’ shares changed.
A separate measure helps put external suppliers in context: in 2025, trade between EU member states represented 64.1% of all EU sporting-goods imports. This is an intra-EU share of total imports, while the China, Vietnam, Indonesia and UK percentages describe the distribution of imports from outside the EU. The measures have different denominators and should not be added together as if they were parts of one supplier-share table.
Source for this section: Eurostat, “International trade in sporting goods”, pp. 6, 10.
National import figures and the equipment mix
Eurostat’s national import totals combine trade from EU member states with trade from non-EU countries. In 2025, Germany was the largest importer of sporting goods among the listed countries, with €6.2 billion. France imported €4.2 billion and the Netherlands €4.1 billion. Germany and France each recorded an increase of €0.9 billion from 2020; the Netherlands’ increase was €0.8 billion.
Those amounts describe national sporting-goods imports, not purchases of gym equipment specifically. They also use a broader trade scope than the €11.8 billion EU extra-EU total above: that EU figure counts only goods entering from outside the Union, whereas the country values include intra-EU and extra-EU imports.
The product mix varied by country. Gymnastic, athletic and swimming equipment made up 33.0% of Sweden’s sporting-goods imports in 2025. It represented 30.5% in Finland and Cyprus, 30.2% in Portugal, 28.3% in Hungary, 24.1% in Lithuania and 22.7% in Estonia. These percentages use each country’s total sporting-goods imports as the denominator and include both intra-EU and extra-EU trade.
The comparison points to differences in the measured mix of sporting goods across countries. It does not establish that residents or businesses in one country bought more fitness equipment per person, or that the listed category consisted primarily of gym machines.
Source for this section: Eurostat, “International trade in sporting goods”, pp. 2, 8.
How national import trends differed
Import growth also varied between EU countries over 2020–2025. Malta recorded an annual average growth rate of 52.4% in sporting-goods imports, and Ireland’s rate was 13.8%. Luxembourg was the only EU country identified as having a negative annual average rate, at −8.1%.
These are annual average growth rates for each country’s total sporting-goods imports over the period, not annual changes in fitness-equipment imports. Malta’s rate stands out, but without the corresponding starting values, it should not be read as evidence that Malta had the largest import market or the greatest absolute increase. Growth rates describe pace, while import values describe scale.
The contrast between these country-level rates and the EU’s 16.3% increase in extra-EU imports also reflects differences in scope: national totals include imports from within the EU, while the EU-wide increase covers only imports from outside it. A like-for-like comparison would require the same product coverage, period and trade definition.
Source for this section: Eurostat, “International trade in sporting goods”, p. 4.
What sporting-goods trade statistics include and exclude
For readers looking for fitness equipment imports statistics, the main limitation is product specificity. Eurostat’s report provides a broad sporting-goods series and a combined gymnastic, athletic and swimming equipment category. It does not provide a separate total for home fitness equipment or individual products such as treadmills, exercise bikes, rowing machines, weight benches or dumbbells in the checked figures cited here.
The scope of each figure matters as much as the number. “Extra-EU” imports are goods imported into the EU from outside its member states. National figures in the report can include both intra-EU and extra-EU trade. A partner’s percentage is a share of extra-EU imports, while a country’s product percentage may be a share of that country’s combined sporting-goods imports. Treating these denominators as interchangeable would distort comparisons.
The available evidence supports a clear, bounded conclusion: EU sporting-goods imports from outside the Union totaled €11.8 billion in 2025, grew 16.3% from 2020, and included a substantial equipment grouping. It does not establish the value or country-of-origin mix of fitness equipment alone. Any narrower estimate would need product-level trade codes and a defined list of equipment products beyond the broad figures reported here.