Safeguarding sport – a milestone in the journey

I have recently been involved in a safeguarding in sport conference organised by Howden, the insurance brokers, who have a significant portfolio of clients in the sports sector. As I hosted the conference on their behalf I am delighted to say that Howden, the speakers and critically the attendees – mostly safeguarding officers – all regarded it as a success. And it was, in its own right. But it could just also be a tipping point and lead to changes in culture and behaviour. I’ll explain why having first given my own thoughts on the background.

Sport doesn’t have a great track record in good safeguarding practice, and I think there are arguably a number of reasons for that such as:

‘Accepted’ poor practice that went unchallenged over time

 It was ‘the way sport was coached historically.’ Athletes and parents of children and young people were afraid to speak out because they worried it would affect their own or their child’s chances of becoming high performers. Typically practices and behaviours done at high performance levels are often replicated at community level.

Change has been slow but the pressure from the (too) many investigations into cultures of sport that led to e.g. the Sheldon Report (football) and the Whyte Review (gymnastics) and the government report on Duty of Care in sport (2017) has cumulatively had a slow but positive effect. But many victims and whistleblowers are still reluctant to come forward for fear of not genuinely being heard and protected.     

Sport was historically exempt from ‘positions of trust’ legislation until June 2022.

In my opinion it took too long to bring sport into line with the law. But the collective efforts of Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, the former minister for sport Tracey Crouch, the NSPCC and others eventually brought about the much-needed change.

Sport marking its own homework.

 If people had a concern or a grievance then it was hard to find who to report this to and then to have faith that due process would follow.

UK Sport and Sport England introduced a code of governance for sport in 2016 (updated 2021) that requires sports organisations receiving public funding – e.g. National Governing Bodies – to focus on transparency, accountability and diversity. This hasn’t been the complete answer but is a significant step in the right direction.

The NSPCC Child Protection in Sport Unit

This was formed in 2001 as a partnership between the NSPCC and the sports councils in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in response to growing concerns about the vulnerability of children in sport and the lack of safeguarding policies – influenced historically by the gap in the positions of trust legislation until 2022.

The safeguarding culture in sport was perhaps highlighted by the lack of a framework for adults at risk in sport until 2014, in part due to the lobbying I did on behalf of the British Athletes Commission members on Paralympic pathways. I discovered the gap because of a particular case of a visually impaired athlete who had suffered abuse from his coaches. Eventually the then CEO of Sport England, Jenny Price, recognised the flaw and funded the Ann Craft Trust to create the framework.

Safeguarding policies have been introduced

We need to consider whether they are truly fit for purpose, regularly reviewed and updated. Then there is the question of resource (staff and budget) to effectively implement them. In addition I’d consider whether all the stakeholders know how to access them AND THEN have confidence that they will be applied appropriately.

The NGBs were set up to grow their sport(s) through increased numbers, create Talent Pathways and be the custodians of the rules and regulations of their sport. Understandably that remains the raison d’etre for many organisations who are relatively small and are heavily reliant on volunteers to meet their objectives. Safeguarding is arguably then seen as an extra demand as opposed to being integral to the NGB’s work and culture. So the organisations are compliant and have policies but are there adequate resources to implement them? And how rigorously are they audited and held transparently to account?

British Gymnastics are to be credited with their response to the Whyte Review with an apology from the current CEO and regular reporting in public on the progress being made against the recommendations the review made. Perhaps as important point is the recognition that they still haven’t got their procedures completely right. There are some stakeholders, particularly clubs and coaches, who find the investigation process too lengthy, opaque and impacting on their businesses and reputations.  

The impact of all the above has filtered into the insurance sector and been one of the main reasons why some insurers have withdrawn from the market completely and/or looked at the premiums they charge to cover risks. A further complication, which really emphasises where a broker like Howden can help, is then understanding whether the current policy’s wording will ‘respond’ or cover the NGB in a particular circumstance. This in simple terms relates to whether the insured’s current policy covers the incident at the time the claim is made or covers the event at the time the incident occurred when it might have been insured elsewhere.       

So, the situation is complex and there is an urgent need to safeguard the delivery of sport and physical activity for all its benefits to society and communities. This is why the Howden Safeguarding conference was timely and can not be seen as just another day out of the office like similar events. What was discussed and understood then has to be seen as a call to action, collaboratively. We all have a duty of care and need to act, together. There is hope, because, albeit slowly, the sector is beginning to wake up to its collective responsibilities.

• There is finally majority support in the sector for an accessible National Coaching Register that will be available to all – including insurers assessing risk and the public. There’s a huge education exercise needed to change stakeholder behaviours though for this to be sustainably impactful.
• There is increased awareness of the need not only to safeguard participants but also the good and trusted members of the workforce too – whether they are employed /deployed paid or volunteers. The need for a sustainable workforce is I believe equally as important as a competitive insurance market.
• CIMSPA are introducing minimum professional standards for the workforce and jobs in the sector as well as independent accreditation for trainers, employers /deployers and FE /HE course and institutions. Again this is taking time but gathering momentum.
• Howden are leading in changing working practice and looking to bring the sectors closer together through more regular client meetings and involving underwriters in being more aware of how clients and the sector more broadly is changing. The fact that insurers need to be engaged in safeguarding cases as a recognised stakeholder in an investigation process is also becoming more prevalent. This was a key determining factor in setting up this conference.

I’m delighted to say that Howden will be creating and sharing a White Paper with thoughts, reflections and recommendations on the day. So I hope the paper and supporting PR and commentary – including from yours truly – will lead to a collective deliverable of duty of care in action. We all have a responsibility.