The aim of the study to determine the intrinsic leisure motivation level of university students and to evaluate the relationship and differences between some variables. 739 university students from different fields participated in the study and the data were collected with “Intrinsic Leisure Motivation Scale’’ developed by Weissinger and Bandalos (1995), adapted to Turkish which consists of 5 sub-dimensions and 23 items by Ozdemir, Ayyildiz Durhan and Karakucuk (2020). Descriptive statistics, independent one-sample test, one-way ANOVA test and Tukey (HSD-LSD) test were used for data analysis. In this study, the intrinsic consistency coefficient of .83 for Competence-Challenge, .86 for Self-Determination, .77 for Commitment, .71 for Identification and .70 for Amotivation were obtained. As a result of the analysis, it was found that the intrinsic leisure motivation scores of the university students were above the average values (111.71 ± 21.00) for this sample group. The lowest average (13.76 ± 4.32) was obtained. Significant relationships and differences were determined according to gender, the field of study, school year and perceived welfare levels of the participants. According to this, a significant difference was found in favor of men according to the Identification sub-dimension and in favor of women according to Amotivation sub-dimension. When the differences between the learning fields and the measurement tool were examined, it was observed that sports science students showed higher ILM in all significant differences than the students in other learning fields. In the perceived welfare variable, it was found that the participants who perceived welfare levels as normal had higher levels of intrinsic leisure motivation than the other participants. At the same time, it can be said that the motivation for intrinsic leisure time increases as the school year increases. As a result of the research, it can be stated that the level of intrinsic leisure motivation of university students is high and variables such as gender, education field and year, perceived welfare level differ. Article visualizations: