Faster, higher, stronger... safer? Questioning the commitment of international sport federations on safeguarding

Abstract

Interpersonal violence against athletes (including physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, harassment, and neglect) long remained a blind spot for sport organisations (Mountjoy et al., 2016). For decades, the status quo allowed these violences to be overlooked or dismissed. Yet, this silence has become increasingly untenable as media revelations of abuse cases, alongside expanding academic scrutiny, have exposed the systemic failures of sport to protect its participants (Constandt et al., 2023). In this evolving landscape, the concept of “safeguarding” has become central. Although international sport organisations (ISOs) have employed the term for over a decade and some have implemented initial protective mechanisms, the field has lacked conceptual clarity.

This presentation examines how 40 international sport federations have engaged with the safeguarding agenda and to what extent they have translated the discourse of athlete protection into concrete governance mechanisms. It investigates (1) how these organisations articulate safeguarding in their policies and communications; (2) the tools and structures they have adopted and the temporal dynamics of their institutional responses; and (3) how safeguarding is perceived, prioritised, and legitimised within their organisational cultures.

Methodologically, this research combines a systematic inventory of safeguarding documents implemented by the 40 international federations, recognised by the IOC; with semi-structured interviews conducted with key stakeholders working on these federations or linked to the field of safeguarding in sport.

The findings will highlight shared concerns across the sport sector but reveal a persistent lack of coherence or coordination among organisations. Significant heterogeneity exists in the maturity and scope of safeguarding approaches, ranging from minimal compliance to comprehensive, proactive systems. The analysis ultimately underscores a wide diversity in strategies, resource commitments, and perceived seriousness of safeguarding responsibilities.

References

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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096121

Constandt, B., Vertommen, T., Cox, L., Kavanagh, E., Cleland, J., & Zeimers, G. (2023). Quid interpersonal violence in the sport integrity literature? A scoping review. Sport in Society, 27(1), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2023.2233433