Understanding the FP10 Proposal and Its Ties to the Competitiveness Fund

The European Union's next major research initiative, known formally as the 10th Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP10), is set to succeed Horizon Europe, running from 2028 to 2034. Proposed by the European Commission in July 2025, FP10 boasts a substantial budget of €175 billion—nearly double that of its predecessor—aiming to bolster Europe's research and innovation landscape amid global competition. This programme is designed to build on Horizon Europe's successes, such as improved success rates for grant applications, which have risen by over a third compared to Horizon 2020, while addressing simplification and strategic focus areas like clean transition, digital leadership, and health.

However, FP10 is not operating in isolation. It forms part of the broader €409 billion European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), a new instrument intended to accelerate industrial deployment and economic competitiveness by merging various EU funding streams. The Commission's vision positions FP10 'tightly connected' to the ECF, sharing priorities in areas like clean industrial decarbonisation and biotechnology. This linkage has sparked intense debate within the higher education sector, particularly among university leaders who fear it could compromise the core principles of academic research.

The 'De Facto Hierarchy' Warning from Europe's University Leaders

On February 25, 2026, a powerful coalition of seven prominent European university networks—The Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities, the European University Association (EUA), the League of European Research Universities (LERU), CESAER, the Coimbra Group, EU-LIFE, and the Young European Research Universities Network—issued a joint statement urging major revisions to the ECF proposal. They highlighted the risk of a 'de facto hierarchy' emerging, where FP10's fundamental, excellence-driven research would be subordinated to the ECF's short-term industrial objectives. 'Without proper legal safeguards, research under FP10 could end up serving the ECF’s competitiveness goals rather than the pursuit of scientific excellence,' the groups cautioned.

This concern stems from the potential for 'ill-fitting constraints'—such as rigid industrial timelines or deployment mandates—to infiltrate FP10's collaborative research pillars. Universities argue that while Horizon Europe has fostered breakthroughs through bottom-up investigator-led projects, like those funded by the European Research Council (ERC), an overemphasis on competitiveness could stifle such innovation. For context, ERC grants have supported over 43 Proof of Concept projects at LERU member universities alone, demonstrating the value of unfettered frontier research.

Stakeholder Perspectives: Science Europe and Beyond

Science Europe, representing major public research funding and performing organizations, echoed these sentiments in its November 2025 position statement. They advocate for FP10 to remain a 'self-standing' programme with an ambitious €200 billion budget, protected from diversion to other priorities. Key principles include excellence-driven governance, strong safeguards for bottom-up instruments like ERC and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA), and independent association rules for non-EU countries. 'Horizon Europe must retain an independent and predictable budget,' they emphasized, warning against any hierarchical integration that could undermine the knowledge value chain.

Other voices, including the European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC), have aligned with universities, calling for a standalone FP10 in line with the 2025 Warsaw Declaration by research ministers. LERU has rung alarm bells over basic research funding, noting that while the budget increase is welcome, without protections, it risks falling short for breakthroughs. These multi-perspective inputs underscore a unified higher education front pushing for balance between competitiveness and scientific autonomy.

Historical Context: From Horizon Europe Challenges to FP10 Proposals

Horizon Europe (2021-2027), with its €95.5 billion budget, marked a shift toward mission-oriented research, achieving notable successes like increased Widening country participation—from 9% to 14% of funding in the first three years. Yet, it faced criticisms over administrative burdens and low success rates early on, prompting simplification drives. FP10 builds on this, introducing four pillars: excellent science, competitiveness and society, innovation, and the European Research Area (ERA).

The 2025 timeline was pivotal: early fears of FP10 dissolution into a 'superfund' led to parliamentary and ministerial pushback. The July proposal retained FP10's name and structure but linked it closely to ECF, with dual-use requirements by default and joint governance. This evolution reflects EU President Ursula von der Leyen's May 2025 assurance of a 'self-standing programme,' yet ambiguities persist, fueling current debates.

Potential Impacts on European Universities and Researchers

European universities, which perform over 70% of public research and attract 40% of ERC grants, stand to be most affected. A hierarchy could divert funds from early-stage discovery to deployment, squeezing resources for disciplines like humanities or pure sciences. For instance, collaborative research under Pillar II might prioritize 'competitiveness windows' aligned with ECF, marginalizing interdisciplinary societal challenges.

Researchers face prolonged application processes if forced to restart between programmes, exacerbating talent drain amid global competition from US and Chinese funding. Early-career scholars relying on MSCA fellowships could see opportunities narrowed. On a positive note, openness to associated countries like the UK (re-associated 2024) and Switzerland (2025) could sustain collaborations, vital for 20% of Horizon projects involving non-EU partners.

Explore research jobs across Europe to stay ahead in this evolving landscape.

Governance and Simplification Challenges

The proposed single rulebook for FP10 and ECF aims to streamline administration but is criticized for benefiting the Commission over beneficiaries. Universities call for beneficiary-focused simplification, legally binding evaluation standards, and separate strategic boards: one for FP10's scientific excellence and another for ECF's industrial scaling.

• Separate boards with Commission-coordinated alignment to prevent overlap.
• Seamless researcher mobility without re-applications.
• Transparent participation rules for ECF-linked areas, avoiding exclusion of top non-EU talent.

Joint amendments from over 900 institutions propose clarifying complementarity, ensuring FP10 focuses on knowledge generation while ECF handles uptake.

Proposed Solutions: Bridge Generator and Amplifier Model

The coalition's blueprint envisions FP10 as a 'bridge generator' producing excellent scientific knowledge and ECF as a 'bridge amplifier' for scaling innovations. This model promotes a continuous value chain without hierarchy, with structured coordination safeguarding autonomy. Science Europe adds calls for balanced Pillar II research linking competitiveness and societal needs.

Additional steps include ringfencing budgets for ERC/MSCA, advisory boards for collaborative priorities, and pilots like EIC's ARPA-style challenges to test innovations without compromising core funding.

International Dimensions and Lessons from UK and Switzerland

Association agreements have reintegrated the UK and Switzerland into Horizon Europe, boosting collaborations. Yet, ECF's potential restrictions could exclude them, harming Europe's edge. Universities urge full openness, noting post-Brexit UK contributions and Swiss excellence in biotech.UK re-association details.

For academics eyeing cross-border opportunities, platforms like AcademicJobs Europe list roles in research-intensive unis.

Future Outlook: Negotiations and Opportunities Ahead

With Cyprus assuming EU presidency in 2026, expect intensified trilogues targeting a partial general approach by mid-year. Parliament rapporteurs like Christian Ehler prioritize research over industrial dictation, while Council debates focus on geographical balance. Positive pilots and stakeholder input could shape a robust FP10.

For Europe's higher education, this is a pivotal moment to secure sustainable funding. Aspiring professors and researchers can prepare via academic CV tips and professor jobs.

Photo by Jakub Żerdzicki on Unsplash

Career Implications for Higher Education Professionals

FP10's outcome will influence thousands of academic careers. Enhanced ERC/MSCA could expand postdoc and faculty positions, while ECF linkages might spawn hybrid industry-academia roles. Universities in Widening countries stand to gain from balanced funding, fostering equity.

Check postdoc opportunities, faculty positions, and university jobs to align with emerging priorities. For advice, visit higher ed career advice.

In summary, while challenges loom, constructive solutions promise a thriving research ecosystem. Stay informed and engaged—your input matters in shaping Europe's research future. Connect with peers on Rate My Professor.