The Case for Centralizing Safeguarding in UK Sports
Since the publication of the Whyte Review in 2022, safeguarding in UK sports has once again been under scrutiny. This report was commissioned in response to widespread allegations of abuse in gymnastics and made several key recommendations to improve how children and vulnerable adults are protected in UK sports.
Both national sport funding bodies, Sport England and UK Sport, have committed to serious reforms in response to this report. UK Government's Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) conducted a "Sport integrity - call for evidence" to explore how current systems for managing sport integrity issues, including misconduct such as bullying, harassment, and discrimination, could be strengthened.
While these initiatives show that safeguarding is being taken seriously, one thing is clear. Currently, sport in the UK has a fragmented approach to safeguarding.
Background & Current Challenges.
The key challenge in UK sport is to create a space where harm and abuse doesn’t have the opportunity to lurk in the shadows, targeting vulnerable individuals. Achieving this requires a multi-disciplinary approach and collaboration across different levels of sport and among various stakeholders, from policymakers to sports organizations.
Organising a multi-disciplinary safeguarding collaboration is no simple task. For example, multi-agency safeguarding hubs (MASHs) have been implemented in health and social care settings since 2011. While in most cases MASHs have made a positive impact, there is still no standardisation governing how these work.
This is similar to the fragmented approach to safeguarding in sport. While there are initiatives, these can vary wildly between different levels and types of sport. Having a centralised safeguarding body for UK sport would be a gamechanger for unifying safeguarding practices.
Benefits of a centralised body
Having a central safeguarding body for sport has clear benefits:
Uniformity in Standards: Centralized bodies ensure that safeguarding standards are consistent across all sports, enhancing the protection of participants at all levels.
Resource Efficiency: Pooling resources and expertise into a single entity allows for more effective and innovative approaches to safeguarding.
Enhanced Accountability: A centralized approach simplifies governance structures, making it easier to enforce standards and address violations.
Education and Support: Centralized bodies can provide comprehensive education and support services, improving the safeguarding knowledge and practices of sports organizations, coaches, and athletes.
In the end, it all comes down to trust. A centralized safeguarding body would go a long way in restoring and boosting public confidence in UK sports. Knowing there’s a dedicated team looking out for everyone’s safety makes it easier for people to get behind sports, whether they’re playing, coaching, or cheering from the sidelines.
Examples of centralised bodies
The United States have experienced a similar shock awakening regarding widespread bullying and abuse in sport. Following extensive reports of abuse within US gymnastics, the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017 was passed. This led to the creation of a centralised safeguarding body, the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
There remit is to investigate any allegations of sexual misconduct, emotional abuse, bullying, and harassment by people and organizations associated with U.S. Olympic-sports programs. They have no legal powers as such, but they can impose sanctions on individuals. They also work closely with law enforcement agencies to pass on abuse cases.
They have sanctioned over 1000 individuals and in most cases, this has led to a lifetime ban from coaching or playing in a sport. While this model showcases how a central body can effectively address and prevent abuse, there are criticisms.
Firstly, they aren’t truly independent. Being majority funded by the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC), many have accused the body of being a PR function, helping to smooth over any criticisms of the USOPC. Other criticisms stem from a lack of transparency and being the sole body able to investigate and sanction individuals accused of misconduct in sport.
There are a couple of organizations within the UK that could be considered as centralised safeguarding bodies, such as the NSPCC’s Child Protection in Sport Unit. However, these organizations currently lack the power or funding to act as a true centralized authority on safeguarding. This gap highlights a critical need for a robust and fully empowered body dedicated to safeguarding in UK sports.
A Centralized Safeguarding Body for UK Sports
A truly effective centralized safeguarding body in the UK must be built on four foundational pillars: independence, authority, accountability, and transparency.
For the body to be effective, it must operate independently of sports governing bodies and have the authority to investigate allegations, enforce standards, and sanction organizations or individuals that fail to comply with safeguarding policies. This independence is crucial to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure that safeguarding decisions are made in the best interests of participants, not the sport's commercial or competitive priorities.
The body must also be accountable to the public and the sports community. Regular reporting on its activities, decisions, and the effectiveness of its safeguarding measures will be essential. Transparency in its operations will build trust and confidence among athletes, parents, coaches, and the wider public.
However, to transition from concept to reality, the establishment of such a body will require collaboration across all levels of government, sport, and the community. While it looks like we’re taking steps in the right direction, it could be many years before we experience centralised safeguarding in UK sport.