Safeguarding in Sport: The Performative Compliance of International Sports Federations

Abstract

Introduction

For decades, cases of sexual abuse and harassment of athletes have been ignored or minimised due to silence, collusion, fear of reputational damage and ignorance (Mountjoy, 2016). Sports authorities have often avoided or shown reluctance to address these issues (Brackenridge, 1994; Lang & Hartill, 2016). This work provides a systematic overview of the measures implemented by 40 Olympic IFs: preventive and protective mechanisms, procedures, and documentation that define or explain safeguarding frameworks and reporting systems. Beyond the objective aspects of these actions, symbolic dimensions are included, leading to introduce the concept of “performative compliance”. It refers to the phenomenon where IFs implement safeguarding measures to demonstrate their adherence to emerging standards in the field of international sport and convince other stakeholders that they are meeting these good governance criteria.

Methods
To develop the concept of performative compliance through the exam of 40 IFs, the “7P model” developed by Mergaert et al. (2023) was used to provide a systematic inventory of the safeguarding policies, decisions, and measures implemented. To support this concept, Bourdieu’s Theory of Fields and Goffman’s Interactionist Sociology were used.

Results

Safeguarding has emerged as a new standard in the field of international sports, marked by the proliferation of measures implemented by IFs. This shift is accompanied by a growing alignment of terminology and definitions, reflecting a consensus on the approach to safeguarding in international sports. The pivotal role of the IOC in defining this standard is key, demonstrating how IFs converge toward these expectations. They tend to prioritize initiatives with strong symbolic value: safeguarding measures implemented often prioritize structural changes to foster deeper cultural shifts; they opt for highly visible and easily communicable actions. Moreover, safeguarding is frequently conflated with broader integrity issues.

Discussion/Conclusion

In response to external pressures and heightened expectations from stakeholders, IFs—guided by IOC—have actively crafted policies aimed at athlete protection. Beyond the sheer proliferation of these measures, there is a clear convergence in terms of types, timelines, and language. This movement underscores the prioritization by IFs of actions that are highly effective in signaling compliance with emerging safeguarding norms. However, the superficial nature of certain measures taken by some IFs highlights the need for clearer guidelines and standards. IFs tend to focus on structural changes but neglect cultural shifts. This highlights the critical absence of a broad long-term strategy.

References

Brackenridge, C. H. (1994). Fair play or fair game? Child sexual abuse in sport organisations. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 29(3), 287–298.

Lang, M., & Hartill, M. (2016). Safeguarding, child protection and abuse in sport: International perspectives in research, policy and practice (1st ed.). Routledge.

Mergaert, L., Linková, M., & Strid, S. (2023). Theorising gender-based violence policies: A 7P framework. Social Sciences, 12(7), 385.

Mountjoy, M., Brackenridge, C., Arrington, M., Blauwet, C., Carska-Sheppard, A., Fasting, K., Kirby, S., Leahy, T., Marks, S., Martin, K., Starr, K., Tiivas, A., & Budgett, R. (2016). International Olympic Committee consensus statement: Harassment and abuse (non-accidental violence) in sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(17), 1019–1029.