**Background:** Since October 2021, BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine has hosted a blog series titled 'Sport and Exercise Medicine Around the World.' SEM professionals from various countries were invited to share perspectives on the state of SEM in their nations, addressing training pathways, collaborative work, integration of exercise physiologists into healthcare, promotion among students, and desired changes. This editorial presents collective takeaways from 25 blogs written by 26 professionals (20 physicians, 4 physiotherapists, 1 chiropractor, 1 exercise scientist) representing 22 countries (Europe=11, Asia=4, America=3, Africa=2, Oceania=2) with equal gender representation (50% women, 50% men).
**Methods:** The editorial is a narrative synthesis of the blog series contributions. No systematic review methodology or quantitative synthesis was applied. The authors identified recurring themes across the blogs and organized them into key domains: terminology, education, interdisciplinarity, and future directions.
**Key Results:** The editorial identifies several major findings. First, terminology remains inconsistent: most countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, UK) use 'Sport and Exercise Medicine' (SEM), while others (Argentina, Belgium, Germany, Latvia, Portugal, Qatar, Thailand, Turkey) still use 'sport medicine.' The authors argue that adopting SEM globally is essential for unifying the field. Second, SEM education pathways are highly heterogeneous. Pioneer countries (Australia, New Zealand, UK) and several others (Argentina, Brazil, Latvia, Portugal, the Netherlands, Turkey, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Singapore) have established stand-alone SEM specialties for physicians. However, several Western countries with high-quality healthcare systems (Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland) have not adopted this model, requiring physicians to complete full training in another specialty before additional SEM training—often insufficient for expertise. Training for sport physiotherapists is similarly variable; sport physiotherapy is not a protected title in every country, limiting professional responsibility and earnings. Third, interdisciplinary collaboration is a central feature of SEM but varies widely. Countries like Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa benefit from multidisciplinary sport medicine societies that promote collaboration. In many other countries, collaboration remains limited to private practice, high-performance, or university settings. Key barriers include limited inclusion of SEM in public healthcare, restricted funding, and lack of professional recognition. Reimbursement is often lacking for sports psychologists, nutritionists, and exercise physiologists, though Australia, New Zealand, and the UK have integrated clinical exercise physiologists into public healthcare systems.
**Clinical Implications:** The authors propose several solutions to advance SEM globally. They recommend increasing SEM visibility in health-based undergraduate curricula, delivered interdisciplinarily to raise awareness and inspire vocation among students. Involving SEM specialists in health-related governing bodies is necessary to translate research into clinical practice, healthcare policies, and insurance coverage. Establishing stand-alone medical specialties for SEM and better integrating sport physiotherapists and exercise scientists/physiologists into healthcare systems are essential steps. Improving accessibility to SEM providers for all patients and athletes is needed for adequate care delivery. Creating research opportunities through combined medical residency with doctoral/postdoctoral time, facilitating higher academic education for allied health students, and establishing professor positions for SEM research and teaching are also recommended. The authors conclude that patients, communities, and economies would benefit from stronger SEM integration and more proactive healthcare systems.