conceptualizing and advancing safe sport - tspace

From Safe to Safeguarding: Conceptualizing and Advancing Safe Sport

by

Joseph John Gurgis

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Exercise Sciences

University of Toronto

© Copyright by Joseph John Gurgis 2021

ii

From Safe to Safeguarding: Conceptualizing and Advancing Safe Sport

Joseph John Gurgis

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Exercise Sciences

University of Toronto

2021

Abstract

The following dissertation sought to understand how sport stakeholders conceptualize

and experience safe sport and to elicit their recommendations to advance safe sport, a movement

that has emerged in response to cases of athlete maltreatment. To-date, the related literature

indicates there is no universal definition of safe sport and thus, prevention and intervention

initiatives differ; further, these initiatives are not necessarily empirically or theoretically driven.

In Study 1, a constructivist grounded theory was employed, and semi-structured interviews were

conducted with forty-three stakeholders in sport to elicit views of the meaning of the term safe

sport. The findings revealed commonalities among the participants’ interpretations, specifically

pertaining to the prevention of and intervention in incidences of physical, psychological, and

sexual harm. Additionally, some participants’ interpretations expanded beyond the prevention of

harm to include the optimisation of the sport experience, characterized by the promotion of

positive values and human rights. In Study 2, an interpretive phenomenological analysis was

used to explore equity-deserving athletes’ understanding and lived experiences of safe sport.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven athletes of diverse intersectional

identities. The findings suggest that athletes from equity-deserving groups experience verbal and

non-verbal forms of discrimination in sport and questioned whether safe sport was an attainable

outcome for them. Moreover, athletes with visible, under-represented characteristics (e.g., Black,

iii

physical disability) perceived themselves as more vulnerable to unsafe sport experiences

compared to athletes who could hide elements of their identity (e.g., gay athletes). Finally, Study

3 was a constructivist grounded theory that utilized semi-structured interviews to explore thirteen

sport administrators’ perspectives of advancing safe sport. The participants recommended that

sport organisations establish a universal framework of safe sport, design and implement

education, implement and enforce policies, establish independent monitoring and complaint

mechanisms, and conduct research to ensure advancement strategies are current and applicable.

The current dissertation contributes to the growing body of safe sport literature by

recommending that conceptualizations and advancement strategies of safe sport, which tend to

be focused on the prevention of harm, extend to the promotion of human rights in sport through

safeguarding.

iv

Acknowledgements

I could not imagine completing this degree, nor advancing this far in my academic and

professional life, if not for my supervisor, Dr. Gretchen Kerr. Gretchen is the most humble and

selfless person I have had the pleasure of working with. She has given me the confidence to

challenge myself as a researcher and dedicated so much of her time to helping me academically,

professionally, and personally. I cannot express enough how thankful I am for her mentorship

and more importantly, her friendship.

Thank you to my advisory committee, Dr. Ashley Stirling, and Dr. Simon Darnell, for

their continuous mentorship throughout my degree. Thank you for your brilliant and insightful

recommendations; your contributions and support have been instrumental towards the

advancement of my research, and personal skills as a researcher. Thank you as well to my

external examiners, Dr. Melanie Lang, and Dr. Peter Donnelly, for participating in my Senate

Defence. Their insightful feedback will be paramount to the advancement of my research.

Thank you to the University of Toronto and the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical

Education for providing me the opportunities and resources to complete my education. It is an

honour to have acquired my education from such an outstanding and reputable institution.

Thank you to all the participants – the athletes, coaches, sport administrators, and

researchers – who participated in the research. Your contributions are integral to the

advancement of safe, rights-based sport, across Canada.

Thank you to my family – Mom, Dad, Nonna, Mariana, Enza, and Lulu – as well as my

new family – Younan, Bassma, and Tina – for your patience and support as I completed this

degree. Your love and encouragement have helped me persevere through several challenges.

v

Without you, I would have not been able to complete this milestone and for that, I am forever

grateful.

Finally, thank you to my better half, Sandra. For your unconditional love, patience,

support, and sacrifices, I dedicate this thesis to you.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... vi

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi

List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1

Personal Reflection ..................................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 12

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 12

History of Sport ......................................................................................................................... 12

Efforts to Address Safety in Sport ............................................................................................ 16

Human Rights in Sport .......................................................................................................... 18

#MeToo in Sport: A Violation of Athlete Rights .................................................................. 22

Influence of High-Profile Cases of Athlete Abuses. .......................................................... 23

Maltreatment in Sport................................................................................................................ 26

Relational Maltreatment ........................................................................................................ 27

Physical Abuse. .................................................................................................................. 27

Exercise as Punishment. ................................................................................................. 28

Emotional Abuse. ............................................................................................................... 30

Neglect.. ............................................................................................................................. 32

Sexual Abuse. .................................................................................................................... 35

Prevalence of Maltreatment in Sport ..................................................................................... 37

Effects of Maltreatment ......................................................................................................... 42

Reasons for Maltreatment Occurrences ................................................................................. 44

Winning over Welfare........................................................................................................ 45

Coaches’ Misuse of Authority. .......................................................................................... 46

Failed Policy Enforcement. ................................................................................................ 47

Limitations of Maltreatment Research in Sport .................................................................... 50

Summary ................................................................................................................................ 52

Safe Sport .................................................................................................................................. 52

Safe Sport in the UK .............................................................................................................. 53

Safe Sport in the US .............................................................................................................. 57

Other International Safe Sport Initiatives .............................................................................. 60

vii

Summary ................................................................................................................................ 66

Advancing Safe Sport................................................................................................................ 67

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 71

Purpose Statement ......................................................................................................................... 73

Overview of the Studies ............................................................................................................ 73

References ..................................................................................................................................... 74

CHAPTER THREE: STUDY 1 .................................................................................................... 96

Reconceptualizing Safe Sport: From Prevention of Harm to Promotion of Athlete Rights ......... 96

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 97

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 98

Methodology and Methods ......................................................................................................... 102

Paradigmatic Position .............................................................................................................. 102

Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 103

Methods ................................................................................................................................... 104

Participants .......................................................................................................................... 104

Athletes. ........................................................................................................................... 105

Coaches. ........................................................................................................................... 105

Administrators.................................................................................................................. 105

Researchers. ..................................................................................................................... 105

Confidentiality of Participants. ........................................................................................ 106

Measures .............................................................................................................................. 106

Data Collection. ............................................................................................................... 106

Procedures ........................................................................................................................... 107

Recruitment. ..................................................................................................................... 107

Data Analysis. .................................................................................................................. 107

Ethical Considerations. .................................................................................................... 108

Results ......................................................................................................................................... 108

Participants’ Reactions to the term “Safe Sport” .................................................................... 108

Conceptualizations of Safe Sport ............................................................................................ 111

Prevention of Physical Harm ............................................................................................... 111

Prevention of Maltreatment ................................................................................................. 113

Optimisation of Sporting Experiences ................................................................................. 115

Evolution of Safe Sport ....................................................................................................... 119

Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 120

viii

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 127

References ................................................................................................................................... 128

CHAPTER FOUR: STUDY 2 .................................................................................................... 135

An exploration of athletes’ conceptualization and experiences of safe sport ............................. 135

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 136

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 137

Methodology and Methods ......................................................................................................... 140


Ontology .............................................................................................................................. 141

Epistemology ....................................................................................................................... 141

Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 141

Methods ................................................................................................................................... 142

Participants .......................................................................................................................... 142

Rationale for Participant Inclusion. ................................................................................. 143

Anonymity of Participants. .............................................................................................. 144

Measures .............................................................................................................................. 144

Data Collection. ............................................................................................................... 144

Instruments. ...................................................................................................................... 144

Reflexivity........................................................................................................................ 145

Procedures ........................................................................................................................... 146

Recruitment. ..................................................................................................................... 146

Data analysis. ................................................................................................................... 147


Results ......................................................................................................................................... 149

Meanings of Safe Sport ........................................................................................................... 149

Athletes’ Experiences of Safe/Not So Safe Sport ................................................................... 152

Verbal Acts of Discrimination ............................................................................................. 152

Non-Verbal Acts of Discrimination .................................................................................... 156

Overt and Covert Identities ..................................................................................................... 159

Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 161

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 166

References ................................................................................................................................... 167

CHAPTER FIVE: STUDY 3 ...................................................................................................... 176

Sport Administrators’ Perspectives on Advancing Safe Sport ................................................... 176

ix

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 177

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 178

Materials and Methods ................................................................................................................ 183


Ontology .............................................................................................................................. 183

Epistemology ....................................................................................................................... 184

Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 184

Methods ................................................................................................................................... 185

Participants .......................................................................................................................... 185

Rationale for Participant Inclusion. ................................................................................. 185

Confidentiality of Participants. ........................................................................................ 186

Measures .............................................................................................................................. 186

Data Collection. ............................................................................................................... 186

Procedures ........................................................................................................................... 186

Recruitment. ..................................................................................................................... 186

Data Analysis. .................................................................................................................. 187


Results ......................................................................................................................................... 188

Recommendations for Advancing Safe Sport ......................................................................... 189

Advancing Safe Sport through an Established Framework of Safe Sport ........................... 189

Advancing Safe Sport through Education ........................................................................... 191

Advancing Safe Sport through Policy Implementation and Enforcement .......................... 194

Advancing Safe Sport through Independent Monitoring and Complaint Mechanisms ....... 196

Advancing Safe Sport through Research ............................................................................. 199

Shifting Towards a Safe Sport Culture ................................................................................ 200

Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 204

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 211

References ................................................................................................................................... 211

CHAPTER SIX: CUMULATIVE DISCUSSION ...................................................................... 217

Overview of Findings .............................................................................................................. 217

Main Contributions ................................................................................................................. 221

Methodological Contributions ............................................................................................. 221

Conceptual Contributions .................................................................................................... 225

Safe or Safeguarding Sport? ................................................................................................ 227

x

Political Developments. ................................................................................................... 229

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. ..................................................................... 236

Under-represented Identities in Sport .................................................................................. 242

Advancing Safe Sport .......................................................................................................... 244

References ................................................................................................................................... 248

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 255

References ................................................................................................................................... 259

FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... 261

Figure 1. Safe Sport Framework. ............................................................................................ 261

Figure 2. Safeguarding Sport Framework. .............................................................................. 262

Figure 3. Prevention of Harm Framework for Safe Sport. ...................................................... 263

Figure 4. Values-Based Framework for Safeguarding Sport. ................................................. 264

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 265

APPENDIX A: Stakeholders’ Recruitment Email .................................................................. 265

APPENDIX B: Letter of Information ..................................................................................... 266

APPENDIX C: Consent Form ................................................................................................ 268

APPENDIX D: Athletes’ Interview Guide ............................................................................. 269

APPENDIX E: Coaches’ Interview Guide.............................................................................. 271

APPENDIX F: Sport Administrators’ Interview Guide .......................................................... 273

APPENDIX G: Researchers’ Interview Guide ....................................................................... 275

xi

List of Figures

Figure 1. Safe Sport Framework

Figure 2. Safeguarding Sport Framework

Figure 3. Prevention of Harm Framework for Safe Sport

Figure 4. Values-Based Framework for Safeguarding Sport

xii

List of Appendices

APPENDIX A: Stakeholders’ Recruitment Email

APPENDIX B: Letter of Information

APPENDIX C: Consent Form

APPENDIX D: Athletes’ Interview Guide

APPENDIX E: Coaches’ Interview Guide

APPENDIX F: Sport Administrators’ Interview Guide

APPENDIX G: Researchers’ Interview Guide

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Organized sport is a paradoxical endeavour, with the potential to both benefit and

threaten the physical, psychosocial, and psychological welfare of athletes. For many, organized

sport, at its best, is linked with positive outcomes in the lives of young participants, such as

higher academic achievement, improved physical health, enhanced social relationships, and

better psychological adjustment (David, 2005; Kjønniksen et al., 2009). Furthermore,

participation in organized sport is reportedly associated with an enhancement in psychosocial

health (Eime et al., 2013), reduction in fatness (Basterfield et al., 2014), improved fitness

(Zahner et al., 2009), and improved behaviours, such as better eating, decreased drug use,

decreased violent behaviours, and safer sexual practices (Taliaferro et al., 2010). Children and

youth who have positive and successful experiences in sport are likely to develop the confidence

and intrinsic motivation required to engage in lifelong physical activity (Kjønniksen et al., 2009).

According to David (2005):

Sport can help young people to become more confident and progressively more

autonomous, evaluate their own progress and set objectives. It reinforces their self-

esteem and concentration, and teaches them to discipline themselves, work in a team and

handle defeat and victory, as well as encouraging fair play and socialization. (p. 33)

However, critics of competitive organized sport have acknowledged the existence of a multitude

of problems, including corruption, the commodification of athletes, cheating, blind ambition,

abuse, and the use of punishment, which may compromise the welfare of athletes and strip them

of their individual human rights (Battaglia et al., 2018; David, 2005; Donnelly, 2008; Kerr et al.,

2020a; Kerr et al., 2019a). Additionally, research supports that organized sport places athletes at

increased risk of experiencing physical violence (Young, 2012), sexual abuse (Brackenridge,

2

1997), emotional maltreatment (Stirling & Kerr, 2014), and exploitation (David, 2005). David

(2005) acknowledged that many experts perceive competitive organized sport as an unhealthy

endeavour for young people to engage in. For example, in the year 2000, the American Academy

of Pediatrics noted in their policy statement that competitive sports and intensive exercise for

young children and adolescents qualifies these individuals as ‘at-risk populations’; the likelihood

of such problematic aspects increases when winning or specialization is over-emphasized and

pursued at the expense of the individual athlete’s well-being (David, 2005).

The harmful outcomes affiliated with sport are often overlooked for several reasons. For

instance, participants’ overconformity to the ‘sport ethic’ (Hughes & Coakley, 1991), which

defines what it means to be a real athlete, creates a culture of silence and tolerance that prevents

stakeholders in sport from speaking out against unethical or dangerous behaviour. The first

principle of the sport ethic requires athletes to make sacrifices for The Game; athletes are

expected to love and respect The Game (i.e., sport) insofar that they prioritize their involvement

above any other interest (Hughes & Coakley, 1991). The sacrifices athletes make in favour of

The Game demonstrates a commitment to do anything necessary for the team, competition, or

individual development (Hughes & Coakley, 1991), including playing through injury or

remaining silent when confronted with other issues in sport. The second principle of the sport

ethic focuses on an athlete’s willingness to strive for distinction; Hughes and Coakley (1991)

explained “true athletes seek to improve, to get better, to come closer to perfection. Winning

symbolizes improvement and establishes distinction; losing is tolerated only to the extent that it

is part of the experience of learning how to win” (p. 309). The third principle suggests being an

athlete involves the acceptance of risks and the ability to play though pain; athletes are expected

to exhibit physical and moral courage to voluntarily accept the possibility of becoming injured

3

and play through fear, pressure, or pain because it demonstrates ideal athletic characteristics,

such as courage and commitment (Hughes & Coakley, 1991). The final principle of the sport

ethic suggests athletes must refuse to accept limitations when pursuing new possibilities; external

limitations are an invalid excuse for not succeeding and thus, athletes are obligated to pursue

goals and endeavours in sport without reservation, in order to be successful (Hughes & Coakley,

1991). Hughes and Coakley (1991) explained that problems manifest in sport “when athletes care

too much for, accept too completely, and overconform” to the sport ethic (p. 310). Consequently,

athletes become more tolerant and normalize harmful actions in sport for the purpose of The

Game (Hughes & Coakley, 1991).

Overconformity to the sport ethic may explain why several cases of abuse have infiltrated

sport and been kept silent for so long. Graham James, Bertrand Charest, Barry Bennell, Jerry

Sandusky, and Larry Nassar represent only some of the notorious sexual predators who misused

their power and used sport as a platform to sexually abuse the athletes under their care.

Empirically, there is a plethora of research indicating that athlete abuse is a prevalent issue in

sport, with higher incidences reported amongst athletes who identify with equity-deserving

groups (Alexander et al., 2011; Kerr et al., 2019b; Vertommen et al., 2016). To combat the

detrimental and unsafe practices of sport, many sport organizations have established educational

programmes and designed preventative policies that recently, have been encompassed by the

term safe sport.

At the 2018 Youth Olympic Games (YOG), athletes were encouraged to complete an

online survey examining their conceptualization of the term safe sport; 1,463 athletes from 206

countries and 32 Olympic sports responded to the survey, as well as 209 entourage members

(Mountjoy et al., 2020). The majority of participants’ interpretations alluded to general safety in

4

sport (21.8%) (e.g., feeling safe, safe equipment, safe environment) and fair play (19%), which

was defined by following the rules and clean sport. Only 9.5% of athletes understood safe sport

as being harassment- and abuse-free sport. Nearly half the athlete sample claimed that abuse and

harassment did not occur (30.3%) or was not likely to occur (17.2%) in their sport; however, if it

did, almost 63% of athletes indicated they knew where to pursue help, compared to 11% of

athletes who were reportedly unaware. The findings suggested that athletes do not understand the

term safe sport. Athletes offered various definitions of safe sport that deviate from the traditional

perspective of abuse-free sport advanced by sport organizations and “when prompted to identify

if various behaviours were forms of harassment and abuse, the results show that the athlete

respondents were largely unaware of the various ways in which harassment and abuse can occur

within the sporting context” (Mountjoy et al., 2020, p. 180). Mountjoy and colleagues (2020)

suggested the safe sport knowledge gap demonstrated by the athletes may be a result of limiting

educational programmes in their respective countries. The disparity may also be a result of many

countries not having well-defined safeguarding or child protection policies in sport, thus limiting

athletes understanding of safe sport (Hartill & Lang, 2015).

Despite the lack of a universal definition (Kerr et al., 2020a) and lack of understanding

(Mountjoy et al., 2020) several international and national sport organizations continuously

design and integrate policies, procedures, and programmes addressing the concept of safe sport.

However, the process of implementing and following through with safeguards to protect athletes

from abuse has been scrutinized for ineffectively facilitating change. The cycle of responding to

abuse in sport is described as follows:

When information about the injury or abuse of a young athlete is publicized, it results in

an immediate flurry of media attention and public outrage. Sport organizations respond

5

with changes to policies and practices, but attention often wanes; eventually, so does

adherence to the new practices and policy changes, at least until the next case emerges.

For decades, the Canadian sport landscape has been characterized by these recurring

cycles of crisis, policy response, lethargic implementation, and resistance, with very little

ultimate change. (Kerr et al., 2020a, p. 68)

To propel safe sport forward in Canada, it has been recommended that safe sport education be

provided to all stakeholders, that a national and publicly accessible database be created to keep

track of individuals who have been criminally convicted or suspended by sport organizations,

that referrals be provided to independent support systems to better assist complainants, and that a

trained triage of contact persons, investigators, and adjudicators be established (Kerr et al.,

2020b). Despite the plethora of recommendations made to advance safe sport, there are concerns

pertaining to operationalization and implementation. Kerr and Kerr (2020) noted that several

policies and education programmes are not evidence-based and thus, may not sufficiently

contribute to the protection of athletes in sport. Of the educational programmes that do exist,

many are considered incomplete, focusing primarily on sexual abuse, and ignoring other forms

of harm, such as neglect or physical abuse (Kerr et al., 2014). In comparing policies across sports

and countries, Kerr and colleagues (2014) also found that the conceptualization and explanation

of harmful behaviours in policies are inconsistent; consequently, this interferes with

adjudicators’ ability of responding to policy infringements in similar ways across the world. For

example, to prevent abuse in sport, the International Olympic Committee (2017) released a

toolkit to support international sport agencies with developing and implementing safeguarding

policies and programmes; although widely used, Kerr and Kerr (2020) criticize the document for

6

referring to abuse as “intentional harm”, given that it contradicts the child abuse literature that

specifies intent is irrelevant when assessing issues of maltreatment (p. 98).

Kerr and colleagues (2020b) also questioned where formal complaints would be

submitted to and who would be responsible for carrying out investigations and supporting

athletes who have experienced abuse. Many sport organizations have claimed that safe

procedures (i.e., responding to complaints or conducting investigations) would be conducted

independently by an independent investigator or Safe Sport Officer; albeit a step forward, the

approach is vulnerable to conflicts of interest within the organization (Kerr et al., 2020a) and

appears to “violate principles of independence” (Kerr et al., 2020b, p. 3). For many sport

organizations, the final reports made by an investigator are often returned to higher

administrative personnel, such as the CEO of a sport organization, for action (Kerr et al., 2020b).

Daube and Thomas (2016) acknowledged the responsibility of sport administrators in passing

sport codes that protect athletes from harm. Several areas of concern, including doping

(Bloodworth & McNamee, 2017), maltreatment (Kerr et al., 2019a; Stirling, 2009), sports betting

manipulation (Hill, 2013), and human rights (Adams & Piekarz, 2015; Kidd & Donnelly, 2000)

fall under the responsibility of administrators, such as sport managers and policy makers, to

establish systematic mechanisms that protect sport (Harvey & McNamee, 2019). Sport

administrators play a crucial role in overseeing compliance efforts, encouraging education, and

providing leadership to ensure a standard level of legislative and organizational understanding

exists among employees responsible for making important decisions (Carpenter & Acosta, 2005;

Staurowsky & Weight, 2013). Despite the paramount responsibility of sport administrators to

protect sports and its stakeholders, there are various examples of how sport administrators have

failed to fulfill their duty. For example, several administrators from USA Gymnastics, including

7

former CEO Steve Penny, Chief of Sport Performance Alan Ashley, as well as Scott Blackmun,

former CEO of the United States Olympic Committee, ‘resigned’ or were laid off for not

elevating or responding to reports and concerns regarding allegations of sexual abuse perpetrated

by Larry Nassar (Pells, 2018). Additionally, Penny was arrested for allegedly tampering with

evidence by ordering the destruction of documents held at Karolyi Ranch, a major training

facility for gymnasts affiliated with USA Gymnastics, however eventually pleaded not guilty

(Fitzpatrick & Johnson, 2018). Several other high-profile cases of abuse in sport have

experienced a similar pattern of silence, thus disqualifying sport administrators as viable

candidates to respond to internal cases of maltreatment.

National sport organization may also function as “a triage role, determining whether a

complaint should be sent to child protection services, an independent investigator, or someone

internal to the organization for resolution” (Kerr et al., 2020b, p. 3). If the independent

investigator or Safe Sport Officer concluded an investigation is required, the sport organization

often selects the hearing panel, thus reinforcing the conflict of interest (Kerr et al., 2020a).

Furthermore, a sport organization’s involvement in any process of investigating or responding to

internal allegations of abuse are reportedly always compromised, or appear compromised (Kerr

et al., 2020b). Kerr and colleagues (2020b) explained:

Conflicts of interests and obligations arise from the pressures the sport organizations face

to win medals and maintain funding from government and sponsors that is contingent on

international success; from loyalty to their colleagues in positions of power; and from

attempts to put their best face forward and maintain a positive image for their sport.

These pressures conflict with their duty to those who raise complaints of maltreatment.

(pp. 3-4)

8

While safe sport has become a new standard of safety designed to protect athletes in

sport, it remains relatively new and obscure. The defining components of safe sport (i.e., abuse

prevention) have been thoroughly investigated in and out of sport for decades; however, there is

a dearth of research exploring what safe sport entails, its perceived effectiveness, stakeholders’

experiences, and recommendations for achieving safe sport. Current research on safe sport

acknowledges the inconsistency in definitions (Kerr et al., 2020b; Rhind & Owusu-Sekyere,

2018), consequently impacting the methods used to achieve safe sport and our ability to advance

safeguarding research. Moreover, despite organizational efforts of advancing safe sport, it

appears those most impacted by this movement – athletes – are unaware of what safe sport

entails (Mountjoy et al., 2020). The development of a universal definition is an essential first step

in unifying sport organizations’ efforts of effectively advancing a culture of safe sport.

Thus, the purpose of this thesis is to investigate stakeholders’ conceptualizations and

experiences of safe sport and to explore stakeholders’ recommendations for advancing safe sport.

The research questions guiding this thesis are:

1. How do stakeholders in sport conceptualize safe sport?

2. How do athletes conceptualize and experience safe sport?

3. What recommendations do sport administrators have to advance safe sport?

9

Personal Reflection

I have not forgiven sport…but I am getting there. Many years of competing in high-

performance sport will inevitably include many highs and lows. And while the excitement of the

highs has quickly faded into distant memories, feelings of hurt, confusion, and overall

disappointment from the lows remain vivid as if freshly experienced. When I was a child, I had

what I would consider a typical fantasy of young athletes to play sport professionally. For the

longest time, this dream seemed quite realistic and was reinforced by certain accolades that I

mistakenly defined my self-worth by. From graduating high school male athlete of the year, to

being named captain on various teams I played for, receiving MVPs, and even being accepted to

play interuniversity baseball – sport was my religion, and I was a devout follower.

Unfortunately, I put my faith in the wrong system, and I was in too deep to ever recognize, or

even accept, the reality. It was not until I was removed from sport, against my own will, that I

was able to see the problem.

Baseball has infamously been described as “a game of failure.” That, however, was not

an acceptable option for many of my coaches. For years, I was emotionally beaten down,

insulted, punished, belittled, criticized, and discriminated against, all by my coaches, who I

blindly trusted and believed had my best interests in mind. I have been called “useless”, “a piece

of shit”, or “an embarrassment”, coerced into taking pain medication to play through injuries,

have been benched with no explanation, which was later revealed to be racially motivated,

criticized for expressing my religious faith in sport, and forced to run to the point of exhaustion

or vomiting. Even when I succeeded in sport, I was punished. Early in the season of my second

year playing interuniversity baseball, I was slotted in as the starting DH (designated hitter)

against the Waterloo Warriors. I went two-for-three, with three RBIs (runs batted in) and we won

10

the game 8-6. I was benched the next four games before I received another at-bat. In that plate

appearance, I flied out to deep left field; as I walked back to the bench, my coach pulled me by

the jersey and said, “you don’t belong here.” I sat the next four games and watched from the

sidelines my coach high-five various players walking back to the bench after striking out. To this

day, I can only assume why I received such a different reaction. After fifteen years of competing

in high-performance baseball, I was kicked to the curb and forced to quit the sport that I

committed years of my life to. Once removed from the sport, I lost sight of all the positive

moments I experienced as an athlete and became consumed with feelings of inadequacy and

sadness. It was a challenging and confusing time for me.

In 2012, immediately following my departure from sport, I began conducting

undergraduate research with Dr. Gretchen Kerr, whom I continued to work with throughout my

Master’s and PhD degrees. Every narrative and assumption I held about sport were immediately

challenged by Dr. Kerr. Through many thought-provoking conversations and countless papers

edited in blue pen – because blue pen made a paper that was ripped to shreds seem less terrible –

Dr. Kerr revealed to me a whole new side of sport. I entered my research career assuming sport

could do no wrong. I once accepted punishment as purposeful and deserving, believed physical

violence was a natural and effective way to manage conflict in sport, embraced hypermasculine

values, praised those who played through serious injuries, and foolishly accepted the control

demonstrated by my coaches as within their right, at the expense of my own rights. It was not

long before I became aware of a different reality of sport and have committed myself to further

investigating this alternate version through the pursuit of graduate research. Over the years, as I

pursued higher education and engaged in critical research in the field, I became less angry at

sport for how it treated me. Rather, I felt sorry for sport…and I still do because I have realized

11

that sport is broken. Broken insofar that I perceive sport to be victim of historical and steady

themes of control, inequality, greed, machoism, and bureaucracy. I say victim because I, maybe

naively, believe that sport by design is not meant to instill harm. It is not meant to be negative,

but when mishandled by unqualified personnel, sport becomes a breeding ground for harm. But

my involvement in sport outside of the high-performance landscape has been quite rewarding. I

have had the pleasure of leading baseball clinics for incarcerated youth across Canada, I have

organized and led tournaments in low-income neighbourhoods, and I have witnessed the power

of sport to build communities and relationships on Indigenous reserves. And so, I cannot give up

on sport because I have witnessed its potential.

After eight years immersed in the areas of athlete protection, coach development, and

safe sport, I position myself as a critical constructivist. My perceptions of reality and knowledge

construction are not fixed, but rather actively and continuously negotiated through my

interactions with changing environments and those I have had the pleasure to connect with.

Through my research, I am also committed to achieving social transformation for those silenced

in sport. As a former athlete who was unable to speak up against the unjust acts carried out by

my coaches, I am now devoted to conducting research that will gradually eliminate the culture of

silence that perpetuates harm experienced by athletes, or other oppressed allies of sport, and

empower those to speak up against the injustices that have damaged sport. And perhaps, this is

an idealistic view, especially given the historic efforts of researchers trying to improve sport to

become a safer and accepting experience for all. Selfishly though, this has been, and will

continue to be, the driving force that mends my relationship with sport.

Conceptualizing and Advancing Safe Sport

12

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview

Although the safe sport movement is relatively new, the promotion of athlete safety dates

as far back as the origins of modern sport (Field, 2015; Frosdick & Walley, 1997; Kidd, 1996).

The following sections delve into the historical roots of sport, and the inception of safety

initiatives, such as the development of rules and protective equipment, as well as the promotion

of human rights in sport. Despite organizational efforts of enhancing athlete safety, several high-

profile international cases of sexual misconduct have emerged in sport across the years; some of

these cases are covered in the literature review because they have a direct influence on the

development of international safe sport initiatives. Furthermore, the concept of maltreatment will

be addressed, including its effects, prevalence, reasons for perpetration, and empirical

limitations, given that maltreatment is the central focus of discourses of safe sport. The literature

review will conclude by addressing national and international conceptions of safe sport,

stakeholder perspectives, and recommendations for advancing this movement.

History of Sport

Acknowledging early historical accounts of sport is integral to understanding

contemporary developments of sport safety. Elias (1971) noted that the term ‘sport’ can be

conceptualized in two ways. Sport may be understood as non-work-related types of physical

activity that may or may not include aspects of competition. Alternatively, and typically

suggested, sport has been interpreted as relatively modern competitive physical activities that

first emerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries across the Atlantic Isles. The latter

interpretation concedes that the evolution of sport is closely aligned with the European civilizing

process. Historically, sport has been described as “a laboratory for masculinity” (Bonde, 2009, p.

Conceptualizing and Advancing Safe Sport 13

1315) that was meant to promote physical and character development (Pike, 2015). Participation

in sport was exclusive to young males and assumed to teach masculine virtues of independence,

discipline, courage, and a fighting spirit that many believed could not be taught by domesticated

mothers in the home (Bonde, 2009). Through sport, “men could create and cultivate a body,

motor skills and a character expressing competitiveness in modern society” (Bonde, 2009, p.

1315). Eventually, as time progressed, so did gender norms in sport. For example, The Inter-War

years signified a time of modernity for women in Britain. Typically referred to as a ‘flapper’, the

modern British woman symbolized an evolution from the silenced Victorian and Edwardian eras

of women and were now recognized for being independent and athletic (Skillen, 2012). The

Modern Girl narrative would eventually extend beyond Britain and become an identity embraced

across the globe in countries such as India, France, China, and the US (Skillen, 2012). Skillen

(2012) explained:

During the Inter-War period more women were earning independent incomes and this

coupled with the increasing availability of leisure activities, cheap clothing and sports

goods meant that a new group of women, for the first time could, if they chose to,

participate in a variety of sports. (p. 752)

Women’s participation in sport during the Inter-War years was limited to middle- and upper-

class women; specifically, women who could afford to participate within private sectors were

granted opportunities to participate in sports such as golf and tennis or for extremely wealthy

women, flying and car racing (Hargreaves, 1994).

In the United States, Park (2012) noted that affluent women in the 1870s began to receive

approval to participate in “genteel” sports such as golf, tennis, and archery (p. 731) and by the

late nineteenth century, there were women boxers, wrestlers, and competitive cyclists performing


across America. The feats displayed by women engaging in competitive sport contradicted the

stance of Edward Clarke, an American physician who believed that women who expended

energy on physical activity would deplete energy required for reproduction and proper physical

development (Park, 2012). Rather, Clarke advocated for women and girls to be passive and

prioritize the development of their reproductive systems (Park, 2012). While women’s

participation in sport was a symbol of modernity, opportunities were still limited. Despite

increased opportunities for participation, sports that could be played relatively close to home

were considered most popular amongst women (Skillen, 2012), thus illustrating a commitment to

traditional domesticated roles of motherhood, or broadly, what was expected of women.

Nonetheless, this period, although not entirely idyllic nor inclusive, symbolized critical

developments in society and similarly, in sport. Developments in women’s sport would gradually

be introduced through the evolution of sport and society, which progressed to welcome women

into traditionally labeled masculine roles. The increase of women competing in the Olympics and

the recent inclusions of Olympic sports such as wrestling and boxing for women in 2004 and

2012 (Park, 2012) respectively illustrates the parallels of society’s civilizing process with sport.

Along the way, individuals identifying with other equity-deserving groups have also

endured a similar civilizing process, characterized by struggle and discrimination. Historically,

disability sport has been considered a “marginal policy priority” that was “loosely integrated into

the sport development activities of national governing bodies (NGBs) of sport” (Smith, 2015, p.

157). Notwithstanding, there have been several feats around disability sport. As early as 1904,

George Eyser, an American gymnast, won six medals, including three gold, in the Olympics,

despite having a wooden leg (Percy, 2019). Other athletes with varying disabilities have

achieved similar success, such as Carlo Orlandi, a deaf-mute boxer from Italy, who won gold in


the 1928 Olympics and Oliver Halassy, a lower-leg amputee from Hungary, who won golds in

the 1932 and 1936 Olympics for water polo (Percy, 2019). Eventually the Paralympic Games

were introduced in the summer of 1960 and the winter of 1976 for athletes with physical

disabilities and the Special Olympics World Games were launched in 1968 and 1977 for the

summer and winter games, respectively, for athletes with intellectual disabilities (Percy, 2019).

By the 1970s, governments from several countries were advocating for the development of sport

opportunities for vulnerable populations, such as people with disabilities (Smith, 2015; Smith &

Haycock, 2011).

In October 1945, the Brooklyn Dodgers signed the first ever African American, Jackie

Robinson, to a professional baseball contract; until then, Black and White players were separated

between the Negro League and Major League Baseball (Stride et al., 2014). Robinson was

known for his aggressive style of baserunning, which reportedly reshaped how the game was

played, but more importantly, he was venerated for breaking the colour barrier in baseball (Stride

et al., 2014). The Dodgers’ signing of Robinson invoked hostile and racial criticisms from fans,

opponents, and teammates and yet, Robinson refused “to be visibly enraged or upset by the

abuse he received” but rather, used his experiences and influence to advocate for civil rights

(Stride et al., 2014, p. 2167).

In April 2013, Jason Collins, who at the time was playing professional basketball in the

National Basketball Association (NBA), wrote a piece for Sports Illustrated in which he opened

with the following statement: “I’m a 34-year old center. I’m black. And I’m gay” (Collins, 2013,

para. 1). In the next season, Collins made history as being “the first openly gay athlete to ever

play in a major American league” (Moscowitz et al., 2019, p. 250). Only a few months after,

Michael Sam, an All-American defensive linesman who played for the University of Missouri,


shared, “I am an openly, proud gay man…No one has done this before...I want to be a football

player in the NFL” (Connelly, 2014, para. 2-4).

Seemingly, discourses of sport have evolved significantly over time and with that, so

have conceptions of the intersections of safety and sport.

Efforts to Address Safety in Sport

As societies and cultures have evolved, so too has sport. Elias and Dunning (1986)

referred to this developmental process of sport as ‘sportization’; the term embodies the period in

which the rules of sport began to be formally written and nationally regulated. Rules were

described as comprehensive, explicit, precise, and grounded in philosophies of fair play,

characterized by equal participatory opportunities for all participants and strictly controlled

opportunities for violent physical behaviour. The rules of sport were regulated by non-playing

officials – judges, umpires, referees, timekeepers – and as a result, participants began to exercise

self-control within sport; this level of self-control would extend outside of sport and align with

the civilizing process of contemporary society. For example, boxing in its early years, circa mid-

seventeen century to early nineteenth century, was described as an “an extremely violent, brutal

and bloody activity” (Sheard, 2004, p. 17). Since then, boxing has become progressively more

regulated and civilized through the written establishment of formal rules that are monitored by

professional bodies (e.g., The Amateur Boxing Association established in 1880). The

implementation of rules function to permit and restrict certain physical movements, penalize

participants who violate established rules, equalize competition conditions (e.g., weight

divisions), physically protect boxers using protective equipment (e.g., padded gloves vs.

bareknuckle boxing), restrict the length of competition to rounds, and medically assess the state

of participants during competition or preparation for competition (Sheard, 2004). Despite


developments to protect boxers from harm, research suggests that boxers remain at increased

risks of traumatic brain injury and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) (Potter et al., 2011).

Similar efforts to address the safety of athletes have been observed in sports such as ice

hockey and American football with the mandating of helmets (Daneshvar et al., 2011), the

recommendation for mouthguards (Daneshvar et al., 2011; Knapik et al., 2007), the introduction

of concussion protocols (Wicklund et al., 2018), and the development of bodychecking policies

(Hanson et al., 2017). Ironically, as rules continuously evolve to make combat sports safer and

policies are developed to enhance athletes’ awareness of the harms associated with contact

sports, there is a growing attraction for sports such as mixed martial arts (MMA), which has

infamously been described by John McCain as “human cock-fighting” (Hill, 2013). Although

there is some research to suggest the injuries sustained in boxing are more severe, such as

unconsciousness or retinal detachment, MMA fighters reportedly endure a higher frequency of

lacerations, bruises, fractures, abrasions, and joint sprains (Karpman et al., 2016). Nonetheless,

in 1996, as a senator, McCain sought to have professional MMA (i.e., Ultimate Fighting

Championship or UFC) banned across the US. At the time, the only existing rules prevented

players from the following fouls (illegal moves): biting, eye gouging, and groin strikes (Hill,

2013). The threat of UFC being banned influenced the development of new rules, such as

introducing judges, weight classes, time limits, rounds, as well as a 10-point scoring system

(Hill, 2013). Additionally, rules were instated to prevent participants from headbutting, using

elbow strikes to the back of the head or neck, and kicking a fighter in the face when down (Hill,

2013). Similar to boxers, fighters were also required to wear (fingerless) gloves; however, when

compared to boxing gloves, MMA gloves are found to produce 4-5 times greater peak force and

more likely to deteriorate, thus lessening the protection available to competitors (Lee & McGill,


2014). Eventually in April 2001, after near bankruptcy of UFC, the Unified Rules of Mixed

Martial Arts was developed, which would eventually be inherited by the Association of Boxing

Commissions in 2009 (Hill, 2013). The comprehensive list of rules provided state regulatory

bodies opportunities to sanction the sport and represented an elaborate development of policy

that more thoroughly addressed topics of scoring, round length, attire, and fouls, which increased

from three to thirty, all for the purpose of enhancing athlete welfare (Hill, 2013; Jensen et al.,

2016). The development of the new standards was also approved by McCain, who stated: “The

sport has grown up. The rules have been adopted to give its athletes better protections and to

ensure fairer competition” (Hill, 2013). Despite the inclusion of new policies and procedures,

MMA has been criticized for reinforcing toxic ideologies of masculinity (Bowman, 2020) and

for causing significant injuries to the head, neck, face, and hands (Jensen et al., 2016).

As such, safety appears to be a relative construct; albeit the design and implementation of

rules represents the sport becoming increasingly safer, several other potential harms for athletes

remain. Over time, the safety of athletes has also been influenced by the promotion of human

rights in sport. Establishing a rights-based sport space was meant to offer athletes meaningful

opportunities to safely participate and access sport.

Human Rights in Sport

The historic segregation of Black and White athletes, the exclusion of women, and the

persecution of transgender athletes represent some of the various ways in which the human rights

of athletes have become infringed in sport (Donnelly, 2008; Teetzel, 2014). Barnes (1996)

explained that “a ‘right’ is a just claim or recognized interest; it is a moral or legal entitlement

that others are duty-bound to respect” (p. 47). Some conceptions of rights rely on a classification

system – legal, egalitarian, political, and economic rights – which have been expanded to address


the social, cultural, and civil rights that “ensure active membership in society” or focus

specifically on classes of people, such as women, children, and of recently, Indigenous and

athlete rights (Kidd & Donnelly, 2000, p. 132).

Contemporary moral claims of sport that assume fair play, universality, and character

development were not historically inclusive of all participants, but rather exclusive for the

colonial, White, upper-class, able-bodied male (Kidd & Donnelly, 2000). To advance a culture of

humanistic, rights-based sport, stakeholders were encouraged “to resort more systematically to

the strategy of establishing, publicizing and drawing upon the charters, declarations and

covenants that enshrine codes of entitlement and conduct” (Kidd & Donnelly, 2000, p. 135).

Kidd and Donnelly (2000) explained the original declarations of accessing physical activity and

sport as a human right emerged in the 1970s as the right for individuals to participate.

Specifically, European countries were inspired by the 1975 European Sport for All Charter, of

which the first article stated: “Every individual shall have the right to participate in sport”;

following this, the 1978 International Charter of Physical Education and Sport stated in their first

article: “The practice of physical education and sport is a fundamental right for all” (as cited in

Kidd & Donnelly, 2000). With the recognition of sport as a fundamental human right, the

Council of Europe eventually declared the criticalness of advancing a comprehensive European

Sports Charter (Council of Europe, 1992) to confront issues of doping and violence affecting

professional and high-performance sport; Article 1 of the charter read:

Governments, with a view to the promotion of sport as an important factor in human

development, shall take the steps necessary to apply the provisions of this Charter in

accordance with the principles set out in the Code of Sport Ethics in order to enable every

individual to participate in sport and notably:


• To ensure that all young people should have the opportunity to receive physical

education instruction and the opportunity to acquire basic sport skills;

• To ensure that everyone should have the opportunity to take part in sport and

physical recreation in a safe and healthy environment; and in cooperation with the

appropriate sport organizations;

• To ensure everyone with the interest and ability should have the opportunity to

improve their standard of performance in sport and reach levels of personal

achievement and/or publicly recognised levels of excellence.

Eventually, sport organizations across Europe would integrate declarations of human rights

conveying participants’ civil right to participate in and access sport (Kidd & Donnelly, 2000).

The enforcement of human rights in sport was reinforced by the International Olympic

Committee (1997), which declared that “The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual

must have the possibility of practising sport in accordance with his or her needs.”

The recognition and enforcement of human rights was a complicated political process

that often emerged out of political conflict in many countries (Kidd & Donnelly, 2000). For

example, the anti-apartheid movement condemned the segregationist policies of South Africa,

which ultimately trickled into sport to prevent Black athletes from South Africa participating in

Olympic sport. The movement is considered a major example of how political conflict affecting

members of sport was overcome by a human rights campaign (Donnelly, 2008). In response to

the apartheid, South Africa was banned by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) from

participating in the 1964 Tokyo Olympics; the ban would last until 1992 (Donnelly, 2008). The

movement also influenced White settler nations in the Commonwealth, such as Britain, Canada,

Australia, and New Zealand, to develop and agree Gleneagles Agreement in 1977, which


represented a mutual understanding between Commonwealth Prime Ministers that participation

in the Commonwealth Games was contingent on countries making efforts towards eradicating

racism (Kidd & Donnelly, 2000). Donnelly (2008) reported that by 1985 there was a global

consensus displayed by every country refusing to compete in major sports against national teams

from South Africa, in protest against their discriminatory policies. In the same year, the

International Convention against Apartheid in Sports was established by the United Nations

Human Rights Commission. The established anti-discrimination statutes and the international

boycott of national sport teams were small, yet purposeful contributions to the political and

economic anti-apartheid campaigns that ended the apartheid between 1989 and 1994 (Donnelly,

2008). The emergence of legislation in sport, influenced in part by the professionalization of

Olympic sport and the collective bargaining of professional athletes, but derived mostly from

human rights legislation, indicated that athletes must be provided the same protection that is

available to non-athletes. Specifically, legislation focused on fostering a sport space that was free

from prejudice and offered athletes equal opportunities for selection on teams and to reap the

benefits associated with sport (Kidd & Donnelly, 2000; Kidd & Eberts, 1982).

In the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, four of the fifty-four

articles explicitly or implicitly address a child’s right to participate in sport and physical activity

(Donnelly & Petherick, 2004). Specifically, Article 31 directly recognized:

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and

recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in

cultural life and the arts.

2. States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in

cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal


opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity (The United

Nations, 1989).

Although legislation exists to protect the rights of children and adults, there is no athlete-specific

legislation, protecting the rights of athletes; consequently, athletes are continuously exposed to

unsafe practices in sport. Concerns about psychological and physical safety of young athletes are

questioned through criticisms of early specialization and the over-emphasis of winning (David,

2005; Hughes & Coakley, 1991) and high-performance sport remains influenced by principles of

social exclusion (i.e., principles of ideological conformity, normalization of harmful practices,

nationalism, and inequitable treatment of equity-deserving groups) (Donnelly, 2008).

#MeToo in Sport: A Violation of Athlete Rights

The safety and rights of athletes has also been influenced by the #MeToo movement,

founded in 2006 by Tarana Burke, an African American woman, to encourage and support Black

and Hispanic girls and women victimized by sexual misconduct to disclose their experiences

(Gibson et al., 2019). It was not until 2017 that the #MeToo movement stormed the media in

response to high profile allegations of sexual misconduct in the workplace, particularly the

entertainment industry, which included acts of harassment and assault (Gibson et al., 2019; Lee,

2018). The emergence of the #MeToo movement represented a progressive shift from the culture

of silence characterized by several cases of misconduct being unreported to one of disclosure,

intolerance, and forthrightness (Gibson et al., 2017). The #MeToo movement also infused the

sport community encouraging the disclosure, support, and response to allegations of sexual

misconduct, and other forms of misconduct by athletes (Abrams & Bartlett, 2019).


Influence of High-Profile Cases of Athlete Abuses. Despite the concerted efforts of

various organizations endorsing human rights to safeguard athletes in sport, several high-profile

international and national cases of abuse in sport have emerged over the years, contributing to

the development of what has become known as the ‘safe sport’ movement.

In 1984, at the age of 14 years, Sheldon Kennedy was first sexually abused in the

apartment of hockey coach Graham James. James would become Kennedy’s coach and continue

the abuse for years, including in Kennedy’s home. Kennedy and Grainger (2006) explained:

Later, after he became my coach, Graham even came out to the farm with me on a few

occasions. My parents didn’t seem to think it was strange that he asked to sleep in the

finished basement where I slept in one of the spare beds. In the middle of the night, he

would come for me as he had in his Winnipeg apartment. He would abuse me while I lay

there pretending that I was knocked out or asleep or somewhere else. Then he’d go back

to his bed. The next day, he sat down to breakfast with my family, acting as if everything

was normal. (p. 43)

On September 3rd, 1996, Kennedy reported James to Calgary Police, indicating that he had been

abused over 350 times by James; on January 2nd, 1997, James was sentenced to 3.5 years in

prison after pleading guilty to 350 counts of abuse, of which 300 were for abuse perpetrated

against Kennedy and fifty for abuse perpetrated against another player (Kennedy & Grainger,

2006). The events endured by Kennedy represent one of many incidents of abuse that have

jeopardized the integrity of Canadian sport. In 2017, Bertrand Charest, a former coach for Alpine

Canada, was sentenced to twelve years in prison after being found guilty of thirty-seven offences

of sexual assault and exploitation between the years of 1991 and 1998; during this time, the

victims ranged between 12 and 18 years (Cherry, 2020).


In 2011, the US was rocked by what became known as the Penn State scandal. Jerry

Sandusky, one of the assistant coaches of the Penn State University football team, was charged

with 48 counts of sexual abuse against children that spanned 14 years. During a Press

Conference in 2012, former FBI director, Louis Freeh, who was hired to investigate the

circumstances of the crimes perpetrated by Sandusky and the means in which the case was

handled by university personnel, expressed:

Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare

of Sandusky's child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State. The most powerful

men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who

Sandusky victimized. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley [Penn State employees] never

demonstrated, through actions or words, any concern for the safety and well-being of

Sandusky's victims until after Sandusky's arrest. (Kelly, 2013, p. 209)

On June 22nd, 2012, Sandusky “was found guilty of 45 of the 48 counts against him and

sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison” (Kelly, 2013, p. 210). The events of the Sandusky-Penn

State abuse scandal prompted a nationwide development of legislation to improve the laws

pertaining to reporting child abuse, including the expansion of the list of professionals with

obligations to report suspected abuse (Kelly, 2013).

Despite the ratification of new legislation, cases of sexual abuse have continuously

emerged in American sport. In January 2018, former Michigan State University and USA

Gymnastics doctor, Larry Nassar, was sentenced 40-175 years in prison for pleading guilty to ten

charges of first-degree sexual assault against young girls and women (Smith & Pegoraro, 2020).

Collectively, Nassar reportedly had over 300 victims with many of them being under the age of


18 years and the youngest being 8-years of age (Smith & Pegoraro, 2020; Women in the World,

2019).

Sexual abuse in sport is not just a North American concern. In the United Kingdom,

football coach, Bob Higgins, was sentenced to twenty-four years in prison for 45 counts of

indecent assault for touching and groping twenty-four individuals, most of whom were young

football participants, from 1971 to 1996, (BBC, 2019; Morris, 2019). Similarly, Barry Bennell,

former football (soccer) coach in the UK, is referred to as a serial pedophile and has been called

the ‘devil incarnate’ (Masters & Veselinovic, 2018). Bennell was first sentenced to four years in

an American prison for sexually abusing a 13-year-old British boy during a football tour in the

US (BBC, 2018). Following Bennell’s release from prison, he was immediately arrested by

British police and sentenced to another nine years in prison in 1998, after pleading guilty to

twenty-three charges of abuse that occurred in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s (BBC, 2018). In

2015, Bennell was convicted for a third time and sentenced to two years in prison for two counts

of indecent assault and two counts of enticing an underage boy to engage in an act of indecency

(BBC, 2018). Finally, in 2018, Bennell was sentenced to thirty-one years in prison for fifty

counts of sexual abuse against twelve boys between 8- and 15-years between 1979 and 1991

(Masters & Veselinovic, 2018).

Abrams and Bartlett (2019) claimed that in all cases of sexual misconduct in sport, “there

was the opportunity for law enforcement, sports administration, governing bodies, and many

other adults to intercede, but for a variety of reasons, they all failed to do so, leaving countless

victims in their wake” (p. 244). Moreover, several high-profile cases focus solely on sexual

misconduct, thus discounting the other forms of harm that have reportedly threatened the well-

being of athletes. In the subsequent sections, various forms of misconduct – hereon referred to as


maltreatment – is addressed in detail to demonstrate how abuse in sport extends beyond the

media reports of sexual abuse.

Maltreatment in Sport

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) (2020), maltreatment is understood

as:

All types of physical and/or emotional ill-treatment, sexual abuse, neglect, negligence

and commercial or other exploitation, which results in actual or potential harm to the

child’s health, survival, development or dignity in the context of a relationship of

responsibility, trust or power. (para. 1)

From the parent-child literature, Crooks and Wolfe (2007) defined maltreatment as “volitional

acts that result in or have the potential to result in physical injuries and/or psychological harm”

(p. 3). When maltreatment occurs within the context of a critical relationship, it is referred to as

relational maltreatment (Stirling, 2009). A critical (caregiving) relationship exists when one

individual has “significant influence over [another] individual’s sense of safety, trust, and

fulfillment of needs” (Crooks & Wolfe, 2007, p. 17). Originally limited to the parent-child

relationship, critical relationships have expanded to include those between a coach and athlete

(Wachtel, 1994), given that athlete welfare is dependent on the behaviours exemplified by a

coach. Power is foundational to understanding maltreatment and when power is misused,

relational maltreatment manifests through acts of physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse,

and neglect. Maltreatment that does not occur within the context of a critical relationship is

referred to as non-relational maltreatment and still represents a misuse of power (Stirling, 2009).

Non-relational maltreatment encompasses behaviours such as harassment, bullying, assault,

corruption/exploitation, and institutional maltreatment (Stirling, 2009). Although the


perpetrator’s behaviour in relational and non-relational maltreatment is deliberate, the

perpetrators’ intent to inflict harm or not is irrelevant (Stirling, 2009).

Relational Maltreatment

There are four types of harm that fall within the category of relational maltreatment (i.e.,

harm that occurs within a critical relationship): physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse,

and neglect. The ensuing sections review the research findings related to each type of harm.

Physical Abuse. The earliest conceptualizations of physical abuse understood this act as

any type of violence that directly caused observable physical harm (Miller-Perrin & Perrin,

2013). Scholars criticized the definition for being too restrictive and inconsiderate of the

potential for harm (Gelles & Cornell, 1990). As such, physical abuse has developed to represent

the “intentional use of physical force against a child that results in or has the potential to result in

physical injury” (Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013, p. 58). Physical abuse may occur through contact

or non-contact methods (Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013). Contact physical abuse includes direct

physical contact, through methods such as punching, beating, kicking, biting, shoving, striking,

shaking, throwing, stabbing, choking, bumping, spanking, slapping, whacking, or hitting an

athlete with a physical object (Durrant & Ensom, 2004; Stirling, 2009). Contrastingly, non-

contact methods of physical abuse include forcing an individual to kneel on a harmful surface,

isolation in a confined space, denying an athlete the use of the toilet, denying an athlete access to

necessary food, water, or sleep, and forcing an athlete to engage in exercise (Durrant & Ensom,

2004; Stirling, 2009).

In sport, David (2005) categorized athletes’ experiences of physical abuse in sport

through four practices: excessive participation in exercise/training, physical violence by adults

(e.g., corporal punishment), peer violence, and violence that stems from participation in


competition (David, 2005). Contrastingly, Fortier and colleagues (2020) suggested physical

maltreatment manifests in sport solely through contact methods, such as shaking, striking,

punching, hitting, or choking an athlete. The authors defined physical maltreatment “purely on

the physical nature of the aggression towards athletes rather than the consequences of these

actions” to avoid any confusion that stems from those distinguishing between physical and

psychological maltreatment (Fortier et al., 2020, p. 5). Rhind and Owusu-Sekyere (2018)

acknowledged the absence of literature investigating physical abuse in sport, compared to other

forms of maltreatment such as sexual abuse; the limited research has been explained through

sport’s consistent struggle to navigate the dichotomy between vigorous, yet beneficial and

necessary physical exercise, and physically abusive behaviours (Oliver & Lloyd, 2015).

Consequently, there are weak strategies to identify physical harm and a potential for unhealthy,

deviant tolerance of physical abuse in sport; this, in turn, may mean that physical abuse is

significantly dismissed in sport and reports of physical abuse are therefore infrequent

(Brackenridge et al., 2005; Coakley, 2007).

Exercise as Punishment. Much of the literature on punishment in sport has examined the

use of exercise as punishment (EAP) and its perceived effects. EAP is understood as the process

whereby athletes engage in excessive exercise drills, such as sprints, push-ups, or running laps,

as a consequence of some perceived undesirable behaviour. There are mixed reactions related to

the classification of harm EAP represents. David (2005) indicated youth athletes in competitive

organized sport may be susceptible to various types of physical abuse, including intensive and

excessive physical training. Similarly, Stirling (2009) classified forced physical exertion (e.g.,

angrily forcing an athlete to train at higher exercise intensities as a form of punishment) as a

form of non-contact physical abuse; consequently, athletes become susceptible to various


harmful outcomes, such as injury or vomiting. Of recency, Sport Canada launched the Universal

Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport (UCCMS) (2019); the policy

categorized the use of exercise as punishment as a non-contact behaviour of physical

maltreatment. In contrast, EAP has been described as a form of psychological maltreatment;

Fortier, Parent, and Lessard (2020) explained that forcing an athlete to perform intensive

exercise to the point of exhaustion or vomiting represents “behaviours that promote the

corruption, exploitation and adoption of destructive, antisocial or unhealthy behaviours of a child

athlete in the context of sport” (p. 5). Regardless of how EAP is interpreted, the existing

literature revealed that it is a common practice in sport, affiliated with significant negative

outcomes.

In a study conducted by Richardson and colleagues (2012), 105 teacher-coaches, 79

teachers, and 5 coaches were surveyed; over 86% of participants reported experiencing EAP

from their coach, 56.6% of participants indicated their physical education teachers punished

them using exercise, and more than 60% of participants admitted they have used EAP with their

students/athletes. Similarly, Burak, Rosenthal, and Richardson (2013) used surveys to examine

the experiences, intentions, and attitudes of university physical education majors in response to

the use of EAP; of the 345 students surveyed, more than 90% reported experiencing EAP from a

coach and 43% admitted to experiencing EAP from a physical education teacher. In a study

conducted by Kerr and colleagues (2016b), 335 undergraduate students in a

Kinesiology/Physical Education programme were surveyed about their experiences in

competitive sport; 88.4% of participants reportedly experienced EAP. Exercises, such as sprints,

long-distance running, push-ups, sit-ups, and jumping were most often prescribed as punishment

to the whole team, or individual athletes, by a member of the coaching staff (Kerr et al., 2016b).


Athletes were reportedly punished for a variety of reasons, including, a lack of perceived effort,

poor attitude, arriving late, substance use, and poor practice/competition performance (Kerr et

al., 2016b). Consequently, athletes described feelings of fatigue, irritability, depression, apathy,

insomnia, reduced concentration, and reduced enthusiasm for training when punished with

extended bouts of EAP (Kerr et al., 2016b) and in severe cases, intensive exercise may cause

serious muscle damage leading to hospitalization (e.g., Rhabdomyolysis) (Lin et al., 2005).

Emotional Abuse. Emotional abuse is an act of commission defined as “a pattern of

deliberate non-contact behaviours within a critical relationship that has a potential to be harmful”

(Stirling, 2009, p. 1092). Relative to other forms of abuse, emotional abuse has “received less

attention…because of the difficulties associated with defining this form of maltreatment”

(Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013, p. 188). The difficulty lies in determining whether the behaviour

in question reflects parental error or subpar parenting, or emotional abuse (Miller-Perrin &

Perrin, 2013). The scholarly consensus suggests emotional abuse ought to be defined by the

specific parental or caregiver behaviours that are perceived as abusive, rather than the effects of

said behaviours (Hamarman & Bernet, 2000). Many organizational frameworks have been

developed to better identify and conceptualize the behaviours understood as being emotionally

abusive. Based upon the literature, Miller-Perrin and Perrin (2013) suggested eight subtypes of

child emotional maltreatment: degrading, which includes behaviours that depreciate a child (e.g.,

the use of insulting, humiliating, or criticizing comments); rejecting, defined by behaviours,

whether verbal or symbolic, that convey feelings or rejection (e.g., refusing to provide help or

singling out a child); terrorizing, defined by behaviours that produce extreme anxiety or fear in a

child (e.g., continuously yelling, swearing, or threatening a child); missocializing, also

understood as corrupting, described as behaviours that encourage antisocial behaviour (e.g.,


encouraging substance abuse or instilling discriminatory values in a child); isolating, defined as

preventing a child from participating in social gatherings or activities (e.g., refusing a child the

opportunity to interact with individuals outside of the family); exploiting, understood as the use

of child for profit or to satisfy individual caregiver needs (e.g., using a child for prostitution or

child pornography); close confinement, the act of restricting a child from moving by binding

their limbs (e.g., tying a child’s arms and legs together), and denying emotional responsiveness,

also understood as ignoring, which is an act of commission carried out by a parent/caregiver who

purposefully does not provide a child the required responsiveness or stimulation (e.g., refusing to

express love and affection).

Very little research has been conducted on emotional abuse outside the high-income

countries of Canada, Australia, the US, or the UK; however, research suggested that emotional

abuse is present to some degree in all forms of maltreatment, thus making it the most prevalent

form of abuse in sport (Rhind & Owusu-Sekyere, 2018; Shaffer et al., 2009). Stirling and Kerr

(2008) interviewed fourteen retired elite female swimmers and explored whether they had

experienced behaviours from their coach, which may be perceived as problematic. The findings

suggested that emotionally abusive behaviours manifest through verbal behaviours, non-contact

physical behaviours, and the denial of attention and support (Stirling & Kerr, 2008). Specifically,

emotional abuse in sport occurs in the following ways: non-assaultive physical conduct, conduct

that denies attention or support, and verbal conduct. Non-assaultive acts occur in the absence of

physical contact and may include aggressive acts, such as throwing equipment at athletes or

hitting objects in the presence of athletes (Stirling & Kerr, 2008). The denial of attention and

support may occur through acts of expulsion or the purposeful exclusion of an athlete from

participating in practices or games (Stirling & Kerr, 2008). Finally, verbal conduct, which


appears to be the most common (Alexander et al., 2011) consists of behaviours such as yelling

and shouting at an athlete or team of athletes; specific behaviours include name-calling,

humiliation, the use of degrading comments, or belittling (Stirling & Kerr, 2008). Battaglia and

colleagues (2017) agreed that the use of yelling is an emotionally abusive coaching practice; the

researchers interviewed twelve competitive hockey players between the ages of 11 and 13 years

who reportedly experienced yelling as punishment administered by a coach. Yelling was

associated with negative perceptions of the self, a negative coach-athlete relationship, and a lack

of desire to continue playing. Further research is required to assess the potential for yelling as

punishment to be considered a form of emotional abuse.

Neglect. Neglect is defined as an act of omission, in which a caregiver fails to provide for

and fulfill a child’s physical, educational, psychological, or medical needs (Leeb et al., 2008;

Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013). A caregiver’s failure to provide a child with “physical health care,

supervision, nutrition, personal hygiene, emotional nurturing, education, or safe housing” is

characteristic of child neglect (Gaudin, 1993, p. 67). The conceptualization of neglect has been a

complex process for scholars studying child maltreatment. Historical and empirical inattention

concerning this form of mistreatment is influenced by the misconception that child neglect is less

severe than other forms of relational maltreatment, such as physical and sexual abuse (Miller-

Perrin & Perrin, 2013). Furthermore, there appears to be a lack of consensus among researchers

regarding the definition of neglect, which may dissuade scholars from further investigating the

topic. Scholars have advocated for an all-inclusive definition of child neglect that considers a

range of factors, in addition to a caregiver’s failure to provide, that may contribute toward this

form of child mistreatment (Dubowitz et al., 2004; Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013). Definitions

provided in the second and third National Incidence Studies (NIS-2; NIS-3) “included various


forms of physical neglect such as abandonment, refusal of health care, inadequate supervision,

and inadequate nutrition, clothing, and hygiene” (Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013, p. 153).

Moreover, the NIS-2 and NIS-3 “distinguished between parental failure to provide when options

are available and failure to provide when options are not available” (Miller-Perrin & Perrin,

2013, p. 153). In doing so, the NIS-2 and NIS-3 definition of neglect “excluded situations in

which the parents or caretakers were involved in acts of omission because of financial limitations

(e.g., inability to afford health care)” (Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013, p. 153). Despite the

definitional confusion and the dearth of research exploring the characteristics, side-effects, and

causes of neglect, neglect is reportedly the most prevalent type of maltreatment endured by

children (Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013).

Definitions of neglect also consider the frequency, duration, and severity of behaviours.

While a lone incident “of neglectful behavior or an occasional lapse in adequate care is usually

considered a normal characteristic of parenting,” a frequent pattern of “deficits in child care” is

representative of child neglect (Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013, p. 154). Some definitions of

neglect identify behaviours that cause immediate harm to a child as neglectful. Dubowitz and

colleagues (1993) indicated “an omission in care that harms or endangers a child constitutes

neglect, whether it occurs once or a hundred times” (p. 18). For example, an infant, who dies in a

car accident because a parent failed to properly buckle the child into a car seat, may be

characterized as neglectful.

There are multiple classifications of child neglect, each with equally debilitating effects

on child welfare. A child may experience physical, educational, developmental, environmental,

and/or emotional neglect. Subtypes of these broad classifications include, but are not limited to

health care neglect, personal hygiene neglect, nutritional neglect, neglect of household safety,


neglect of household sanitation, inadequate shelter, abandonment, supervisory neglect, and

fostering delinquency (Dubowitz et al., 2004; Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013). Within sport,

athletes are also susceptible to experience variations of neglect as well. An athlete may

experience physical neglect, such as when they are not provided adequate healthcare to treat an

injury, educational neglect, demonstrated by a coach who fails to allow time for schoolwork,

emotional neglect, characterized by a failure to attend to the emotional needs of an athlete, and

social neglect, categorized by inattention of social needs (Stirling, 2009).

Emotionally neglectful caregivers are unavailable, disconnected, avoidant, and

insensitive to the emotional needs and desires their child (Egeland, 2009). Mash and Wolfe

(2014) provided a comprehensive definition of emotional neglect, in which they identified this

form of maltreatment as the “failure to provide for a child’s basic emotional needs, including

marked inattention to the child’s needs for affection, refusal of or failure to provide needed

psychological care…” (p. 510). Within the context of sport, athletes may feel emotionally

neglected when a coach denies them meaningful opportunities to participate during competition

as occurs when athletes are benched (Battaglia et al., 2018). Existing research suggests benching

may be harmful to an athlete and have significant negative effects on an athlete’s quality of

sporting experience (Kretchmar, 2013). For example, Battaglia and colleagues (2018) explored

competitive youth male ice hockey goalies’ experiences of benching in sport; the findings

suggested athletes who were frequently punished through benching experienced feelings of low

self-worth, impaired peer-to-peer and coach-athlete relationships, and impaired learning.

Kretchmar (2013) agreed “youth sport…should afford participation opportunities for the talented

and untalented alike:


In youth sport, the focus should be on learning the game, on developing personal skills,

and on enjoying the activity. Every kid, it would seem, has a right to learn and improve.

Every child has a right to play in a physically and psychologically safe environment.

Because of this, playing time should be well distributed. (p. 125)

Sexual Abuse. There are a range of definitions and concepts that exist to conceptualize

sexual abuse but central to these are the defining characteristics “that the behaviour experienced

is unwanted or threatening, troublesome, insulting offensive and an abuse of power” (Fasting,

2015, p. 438). Sexual abuse is a highly complex behaviour characterized by several forms (e.g.,

child sexual abuse), perpetrators (e.g., individuals with varying sexualities, genders, cultures),

and victims (e.g., children or adults) (Brackenridge et al., 2008). In 1978, the National Center on

Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) issued one of the earliest definitions of child sexual abuse,

which remains consistent with current research and legal definitions:

Contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used for the

sexual stimulation of the perpetrator or another person. Sexual abuse may also be

committed by a person under the age of 18 when that person is either significantly older

than the victim or when the perpetrator is in a position of power or control over another

child. (Martin & Klaus, 1978, p. 2)

Current, yet similar definitions have been advanced, such as that suggested by Palmer and

Feldman (2017), who defined child sexual abuse as:

… any act that exposes a child to, or involves a child in, sexual processes beyond his or

her understanding or contrary to accepted standards. Sexually abusive behaviors can

include the fondling of genitals, masturbation, oral sex, vaginal or anal penetration by a

penis, finger, or any other object, fondling of breasts, voyeurism, exhibitionism and


exposing the child to or involving the child in pornography. It also includes child

grooming which refers to actions deliberately undertaken with the aim of befriending and

establishing an emotional connection with a child to lower the child’s inhibitions in

preparation for sexual activity with the child. (p. 24)

Definitions of child sexual abuse often include four elements considered essential in defining the

act. Firstly, the broadness of the definition insinuates an awareness that sexual abuse may occur

by extra- or intrafamilial means (Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013). Second, sexual abuse may occur

through contact and non-contact methods; contact methods include, but are not limited to,

intercourse, penetration, or fondling, whereas non-contact sexual abuse may include, but are not

limited to, exposing a child to pornography, or exposing oneself to a child (Miller-Perrin &

Perrin, 2013). The third relevant component is highlight “the adult’s exploitation of his or her

authority, knowledge, and power to achieve sexual ends” (Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013, p. 99).

The power imbalance between an adult and child reinforces that children are unable to provide

informed consent to engage in sexual activity with an adult; this is because children are

underdeveloped and incapable of fully comprehending the activity they are consenting to and the

associated consequences and because the authority of the adult may place children in a

vulnerable position whereby, they are incapable of declining involvement (Miller-Perrin &

Perrin, 2013). Finally, definitions of sexual abuse acknowledge “the age or maturational

advantage of the perpetrator over the victim” (Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013, p. 99). This

component takes into consideration that anyone can be a perpetrator, including another child or

adolescent, as long as the act of abuse “involves the exploitation of a child by virtue of the

perpetrator’s size, age, sex, or status” (Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013, p. 99).


The inquiry of sexual abuse in sport has largely explored the emergence, various types,

and associated effects of this harm (Hartmann-Tews et al., 2020; Parent & Fortier, 2018). Sexual

abuse in sport has received the most empirical and media attention (Kerr et al., 2019a). Despite

resistance from sport organizations that fail to acknowledge and respond to allegations of sexual

abuse (Brackenridge, 1997; Hartill, 2013), research has confirmed the prominence of sexual

abuse in sport (Tschan, 2013), across multiple levels of competition (Mountjoy, 2018), affecting

both men (Hartill, 2009) and more often women (Brackenridge, 1997; Brackenridge, 2001).

Brackenridge (1997) acknowledged the difficulty researchers have exploring sexual abuse in

sport; sport administrators are often reluctant to admit that sexual abuse occurs within their

organization and coaches, as well as athletes, are often hesitant when addressing the issue. The

reservations of addressing sexual abuse in sport may stem from stakeholders’ disbelief that

sexual abuse occurs in a traditionally moral space such as sport and that the encouragement

children and athletes receive to ‘play fair’ in sport may influence their decision to remain silent

(Brackenridge, 1997). Or disbelief may stem from stakeholders’ unwillingness to accept that

certain people can be perpetrators. Sexual abusers are often trusted members within an

organization with a prestigious status; the trust they form with members of the organization or

community is a mechanism that permits them to engage in sexually abusive behaviours, cover-up

their behaviours from parents and organization members, and ultimately silence their victims

(Harris & Terry, 2019).

Prevalence of Maltreatment in Sport

In 2011, Alexander and colleagues published the findings from a three-year study that

examined the experiences of children and youth participating in organized sport in the UK. The

study was funded by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC)


and sought to understand the negative treatment endured by children in organized sport in the

UK. A mixed-methods approach was employed by the researchers; 6,124 survey responses were

collected from participants ages 18-22-years, exploring their retrospective experiences of

participating in sport, up to the age of 16 years. Of this sample, eighty-nine, in-depth telephone

interviews were conducted with participants who disclosed experiences of harm in sport. The

survey results revealed that emotional harm was the most prevalent type of harm, with 75% of

respondents reportedly experiencing some type of emotionally harmful behaviour, such as being

criticized for performance, being embarrassed, humiliated, and teased, or being bullied and

shouted at. Emotional harm was reportedly experienced by participants competing at higher

levels of competition; however, the results suggest emotional harm is prevalent in recreational

sport as well. Across every level of sport – recreational, local, district, national, and international

– teammates and peers were found to be greater perpetrators of emotional harm, followed by

coaches and trainers, and experienced more often by males than females. In comparison, 29% of

respondents experienced sexual harassment and 24% experienced physical harm; there was a

higher relative rate of males who experienced physical harm, whereas females were more likely

to experience sexual harassment. Both physical harm and sexual harassment were found to be

more prevalent at higher levels of competition, with physical harm being perpetrated primarily

by coaches and trainers and sexual harassment being perpetrated by teammates and peers.

Vertommen and colleagues (2016) conducted a similar study, examining the prevalence

of interpersonal violence (IV) in youth sport in the Netherlands and Flanders. In total, 4,043

participants, including 1,999 Dutch and 2,044 Flemish athletes completed an online survey

assessing retrospectively their experiences of IV. Similar to the results found by Alexander et al.

(2011), psychological violence was the most prevalent type of harm experienced by the athletes


(37.6%). Physical violence was also the most infrequent form of harm experienced (11.3%),

followed by sexual violence (14.3%). The authors did not explore the prevalence of neglect in

sport. There were no significant differences of harm experienced between the Dutch and Flemish

participants, with rates of violence being reported slightly higher in Flanders. Male athletes

experienced higher rates of psychological (39.2%: 36.3%, males: females) and physical violence

(14.2%: 8.8%, males: females), whereas sexual violence was more prevalent among the female

athletes (17.2%: 10.8%, females: males).

Kerr and colleagues (2019b) examined the prevalence of maltreatment reportedly

experienced by current and retired National team athletes in Canada; overall, 1001 athletes,

including 764 current athletes and 237 retired athletes completed an online survey. The findings

revealed that psychological harm was the most prevalent form of maltreatment reported by the

participants (17.2% of current athletes and 23.3% of retired athletes) and enacted mostly by

coaches, followed by neglect (14.8% of current athletes and 21.8% of retired athletes), which

was perpetrated by coaches, sport administrators, and high-performance directors. Both current

and retired athletes reported being shouted at in a critical or angry manner as the most prevalent

type of psychological harm (31.3% current and 39.1% retired) and unequal treatment as the most

prevalent type of neglect (47.5% current and 63.7% retired). In comparison, 4% of current and

6.9% of retired athletes experienced sexual harm and 2.8% and 4.6% of current and retired

athletes experienced physical harm, respectively. The most prevalent type of sexual harm was

the use of sexist jokes/remarks (14.3% current and 16.4% retired) and the use of excessive

exercise was the most frequently experienced form of physical harm (11% current and 18.4%

retired). Female athletes reported greater experiences of harmful behaviours and retired athletes

reported higher rates of every form of maltreatment compared to current athletes. In total, 19.8%


of retired athletes reported having suicidal thoughts compared to 13.2% of current athletes, as a

result of their harmful experiences in sport.

Finally, Parent and Vaillancourt-Morel (2020) examined interpersonal violence toward

athletes (VTA) in Québec, Canada. This study uniquely examined the current experiences of

youth athletes, as opposed to retrospectively assessing experiences of interpersonal violence,

which is a common approach in other prevalence studies. Specifically, 1,055 youth athletes (763

females: 292 males) between the ages of 14 and 17 years completed an online survey examining

experiences of interpersonal violence in sport, including sexual violence, physical violence,

psychological violence, and neglect. Similar to other prevalence studies, the findings revealed

that psychological violence was most commonly experienced (79.2%). Of this sample, 39.9% of

participants reported experiencing physical violence, 35.7% reported experiencing neglect, and

28.2% reported experiencing sexual violence. The authors identified a correlation between being

older, female, early specialization in sport, and increased hours of weekly practice, with

experiences of psychological violence or neglect. Further, being older, male, non-heterosexual,

affiliated with team sports, participating in more hours of practice per week and competing at an

interregional or provincial sport level, were correlated with higher reports of physical violence.

Finally, higher reports of sexual violence were correlated with identifying as non-heterosexual

and being an interregional or provincial athlete.

Currently, Edge Hill University’s Centre for Child Protection and Safeguarding in Sport

(CPSS) is conducting a prevalence study examining competitive athletes’ negative sport

experiences in the United Kingdom (Child Protection in Sport Unit, 2020b). At the time of

writing this, no data have been published.


Although the prevalence studies reveal important trends to enhance our understanding of

maltreatment in sport (e.g., psychological/emotional abuse is most prevalent, athletes with under-

represented identities report greater experiences of maltreatment), there are several limitations

related to the quantitative assessment of maltreatment in sport. Firstly, there is limited

examination on types of maltreatment that extend beyond abuse (e.g., neglect) and prevalence

studies examining the perspectives of coaches or other perpetrators appear nonexistent (Parent &

Fortier, 2017). Many studies (Alexander et al., 2011; Vertommen et al., 2016) rely on

retrospective accounts of athletes’ experiences of maltreatment in sport, which may be subject to

memory bias (Alexander et al., 2011). Moreover, samples are often not reflective of the spectrum

of genders (i.e., only focus on males and females), and nor do the available prevalence studies

intentionally examine the negative experiences of participants with under-represented identities.

Regarding the examination of male and female experiences, response rates tend to be lower from

males (Alexander et al., 2011); it is hypothesized that males are less likely to disclose negative

experiences, such as sexual abuse, because of hypermasculine and heteronormative narratives

reinforced in sport. As such, gender trends are not definitive. Questionnaires used for prevalence

studies may be tedious and complex to complete, which may discourage individuals from

participating (Alexander et al., 2011). Given the mass distribution of questionnaires, it is difficult

to determine the motivation for people participating (i.e., are people who had negative

experiences or positive experiences more likely to complete the survey?); consequently,

researchers conducting prevalence studies may be unable to determine whether the gathered

responses represent an overstatement or understatement of negative experiences in sport

(Alexander et al., 2011). Additionally, prevalence studies on maltreatment in sport often depict

correlations, rather than causality. Finally, the conceptual challenges encountered by researchers


measuring the prevalence of harmful experiences in sport have interfered with our ability to

create a pre-validated tool to be used to replicate studies across various contexts, and ultimately

advance safe(guarding) research in sport (Rhind & Owusu-Sekyere, 2018). Specifically, this area

of inquiry has been examined through a maltreatment (Alexander et al., 2011; Kerr et al., 2019),

interpersonal violence (Parent & Vaillancourt-Morel, 2020; Vertommen et al., 2016), and

abuse/harassment (Mountjoy et al., 2020) lens. Moreover, the normalization of harmful practices

in sport may interfere with participants’ abilities to identify and disclose negative experiences,

which have been previously accepted. Until we achieve definitional consistencies and conceptual

alignment, the generalization of prevalence data to other populations or sport contexts – and thus

our overall understanding of the prevalence of maltreatment in sport – remains limited.

Effects of Maltreatment

There are several short- and long-term detrimental effects associated with child

maltreatment. Each type of harm poses significant risks on the cognitive, behavioural, and

socioemotional development of children (Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013). Generally, acts of

maltreatment place children and youth at increased risk of cognitive deficits, academic

adaptation declines, antisocial behaviour, behavioural problems, maladaptive perceptions of the

self, and mental health disorders, including depression, social anxiety disorder, or post-traumatic

stress disorder (English et al., 2005; Jaffee & Maikovich-Fong, 2011). Children who were

abused exhibit below average cognitive and intellectual functioning and display underdeveloped

perceptual-motor skills, problem-solving skills, and communication (Macfie et al., 2001).

Additionally, children who were chronically maltreated expressed increased levels of aggression,

decreased ability of using coping skills (English et al., 2005), and higher rates of juvenile


reoffending (Stewart et al., 2008). The adverse effects endured by child and youth victims of

maltreatment often persist into adulthood (Arnow, 2004).

Miller-Perrin and Perrin (2013) reported children who have been neglected often display

social and attachment difficulties (e.g., disturbed parent-child attachment and interactions,

disturbed peer interactions), cognitive and academic deficits (e.g., low academic achievement,

low academic engagement, intelligence deficits as well as deficits in language comprehension

and verbal abilities), emotional and behavioural problems (e.g., low self-esteem, ineffective

coping, increased anger, frustration and verbal aggression), physical consequences (e.g., obesity

and failure to thrive), and long-term consequences (e.g., cognitive deficits, alcoholism, and

psychiatric disorders). Similarly, youth victims of emotional maltreatment reportedly “feel

worthless, damaged, unloved, unwanted, or endangered” (Hornor, 2011, p. 436). Extreme cases

of emotional maltreatment may increase the likelihood of children developing depression and

anxiety, obesity, traumatic stress, and suicidal tendencies (Hornor, 2011). Hornor (2011) argued

that emotional maltreatment, more so than physical or sexual abuse, “may predispose a person to

developing depression or anxiety” (p. 438). Children who were emotionally abused struggle with

socializing and developing interpersonal relationships (Spertus et al., 2003). Additionally,

emotionally abused individuals also develop poor emotional regulation skills, consequently

leading to the inability of appropriately expressing feelings of anger and frustration (Hornor,

2011). Finally, the potentially physical nature of acts of physical and sexual abuse place victims

of these specific types of harm at risk of the following physical outcomes: physical injury,

bruises, broken bones, genital bleeding/itching/pain, difficulty walking/sitting, and sexually

transmitted diseases (Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013).


In sport, various studies that have examined abuse within the coach-athlete relationship

indicated that emotional abuse is the most frequent form of abuse occurring in sport (Alexander

et al., 2011; Kerr et al., 2019). The reported side-effects of emotional abuse in sport are similar to

those reported in the child maltreatment literature. Emotional abuse within the coach-athlete

relationship may threaten the psychological well-being of elite athletes (Gervis & Dunn, 2004)

and cause emotional distress (Stirling & Kerr, 2008). Stirling and Kerr (2013) explored the

perceived effects of emotional abuse in the coach-athlete relationship; fourteen elite athletes,

including both males and females, from a variety of sports were asked about their personal

relationship with their coach and whether they had ever received demeaning comments from

their coach in the form of yelling or shouting. All participants admitted to experiencing some

form of emotional abuse, and the effects of such harm were broadly categorized as:

psychological effects, training effects, and performance effects (Stirling & Kerr, 2013).

Psychological effects reflected athletes’ feelings of anxiety, low self-esteem, anger, decreased

self-efficacy, and low mood (Stirling & Kerr, 2013). Training effects encompassed athletes’

feelings of reduced enjoyment, decreased motivation, impaired focus, and difficulty with skill

acquisition (Stirling & Kerr, 2013). Some athletes were motivated in response to emotionally

harmful behaviours, with desires to increase training efforts and regain the coach’s approval;

however, most athletes felt that their performance was hindered as a result of the psychological

harm they endured through emotionally abusive coaching practices.

Reasons for Maltreatment Occurrences

A substantial body of literature addresses potential reasons for the occurrence of

maltreatment in sport.


Winning over Welfare. The performance-centred and winning-oriented nature of

organized sport has negatively impacted the experiences of children and youth in sport

(Brackenridge et al., 2012; Lang & Hartill, 2015). David (1999) argued that contemporary

organized sport has developed into a space “in which the most respectable aspects of sports, such

as its educative scope, sportsmanship and physical and mental wellbeing, are seriously

threatened” from coaches who no longer consider “how sports could benefit children but rather

how children could benefit sports” (pp. 53-54). This perspective prioritizes the child’s role as an

athlete and treats children as miniature adults or objects controlled by adults who are invested in

the success of young athletes (David, 1999; Lang & Hartill, 2015). Consequently, sport becomes

an unsafe space that places athletes at increased risk of harm due to the aggressive involvement

of adults in organized sport.

The complicit nature of many sport organizations and their stakeholders who refrain from

responding to reports or suspicions of abuse contributes to the perpetuation of maltreatment in

sport, as seen in the high-profile cases of Jerry Sandusky, Larry Nassar or Barry Bennell (Harris

& Terry, 2019; Kerr et al., 2020a). Kerr and Stirling (2014) proposed that the general obsession

with winning and specialization in sport has interfered with stakeholders’ ability to recognize

acts of abuse before their very eyes, a process referred to as ‘wilful blindness.’ To an extent, it

appears abusive acts are normalized in sport and enabled by a culture of silence that holds

institutional sport in the highest regard and protects individuals, such as coaches, who possess a

position of unquestioned authority (Kirby et al., 2000). As such, stakeholders, such as parents,

become silent bystanders, accepting acts of emotional abuse experienced by their child, with the

belief that these abusive coaching behaviours are essential in promoting athlete development

(Kerr & Stirling, 2012; Kerr et al., 2016a). This silence is a result of a disempowering,


unregulated sport structure that reinforces ideologies of a strong work ethic amongst athletes, at

the expense of their individual welfare (Kirby et al., 2000). Kirby and colleagues (2000)

proposed the concept of a dome of silence to describe a culture of sport that “protects those with

sexual motives who grow up in or infiltrate organized sport” (p. 119). The dome of silence has

two primary functions:

The first is to separate the public on the outside from the sport world on the inside. The

second is to use the pressure created by the rarified atmosphere inside the dome to create

a self-sufficient and self-perpetuating sport system which needs only a constant turnover

of athletes committed to grasping the brass ring, an Olympic gold medal. (p. 119)

Although this concept is used to address cases of sexual abuse specifically, evidence suggests

other forms of maltreatment are continuously tolerated in sport that would not necessarily be

accepted in other educational domains, such as coaches’ use of punishment. Overall, to minimize

the risk of harm, “concerns over winning and excellence should be toned down in favor of better

meeting the rights and interests of the players” (Kretchmar, 2013, pp. 121-122).

Coaches’ Misuse of Authority. The coach-athlete relationship is one of the most

significant relationships of an athlete’s career, and thus, the coach has an essential role in

safeguarding athletes from harm. Meaningful coach-athlete relationships are task-focused and

strive to enhance essential elements, such as physical skills, social relationships, and

psychological well-being as a means of improving performance and to “enable a sense of

achievement and excellence to be experienced by both the coach and the athlete” (Jowett &

Carpenter, 2015, p. 2). Moreover, coaches are responsible for fostering a learning environment

that enhances the psycho-social development of athletes and promotes the achievement of

personal excellence (Côté, 2006; Miller & Kerr, 2002). To be a good coach, coaches are


expected to coach responsibly, prioritizing the best intentions of athletes above everything else

(Kirby et al, 2000). Unfortunately, many coaches lose sight of this central duty; the normalized

use of harmful coaching practices and the culture of winning and specialization often endorsed

by organized sport place athletes at increased risk of maltreatment (David, 2005). David (2005)

indicated “many specialists agree that competitive sports are not necessarily healthy for young

people…and qualified children engaged in these activities as ‘at-risk populations’”, alluding to

the abuse that is normalized and silenced in sport at the expense of winning (p. 33). Despite

empirical evidence emphasizing the detrimental effects associated with abuse, there is evidence

to suggest that “harmful coaching practices…are often accepted as a requirement for the

development of elite athletes” (Kerr et al., 2016a, p. 88).

To understand the reasons for using emotionally harmful practices, Stirling (2013)

explored coaches’ perceptions of previously used emotionally abusive practices. Nine elite

coaches were interviewed and asked to reflect on their career and potentially, emotionally

harmful practices they may have used against their athletes. Five of these coaches admitted to

using emotionally harmful behaviours, in the form of verbal behaviours such as yelling, and

through physical behaviours such as kicking equipment (Stirling, 2013). Coaches explained that

emotionally abusive behaviours were used “to achieve a desired outcome”, which was

categorized as an instrumental use of emotional abuse (Stirling, 2013, p. 631). Additionally,

there is an expressive category of emotionally harmful behaviour, whereby coaches reported

acting “out of frustration…to push…athletes to perform better” (Stirling, 2013, p. 631).

Failed Policy Enforcement. The failure to adequately enforce policies to prevent

maltreatment in sport has also been proposed as a contributor to the perpetuation of athlete

maltreatment. In the 1990s, there were pervasive developments of policy addressing prevention


measures and procedures for responding to complaints of athlete maltreatment (Donnelly et al.,

2016). At that time, Sport Canada’s Assistant Deputy Minister established a ‘harassment in

sport’ working group, comprised of members from various sport bodies; from this, the

Harassment in Sport: A Guide to Policies, Procedures and Resources, was developed by the

Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women in Sport and Physical Activity (CAAWS)

(now Canadian Women & Sport) (CAAWS, 1994; Donnelly et al., 2016). The document, which

was distributed across the national and international sport community, included a template for

developing harassment policies “and identified the need for sport organizations to designate two

harassment officers, one female and one male, who were trained and arm’s length to the

organization” (Donnelly et al., 2016, p. 34). By 1996, Sport Canada established the Sport

Funding and Accountability Framework (SFAF), which required national sport organizations to

have a publicly accessible harassment and abuse policy and the training of arm’s length

harassment officers who would investigate and respond to complaints. Sport organizations were

required to annually report their adherence to the policy to receive government funding (Christie,

1996; Donnelly et al., 2016).

As later evidenced, there was a lack of oversight and accountability to ensure adherence

to these requirements. Additionally, while Sport Canada establishes the requirements, it does not

ratify organization’s policies; consequently, compliance is dependent on self-reports made by

national sport organizations (Donnelly et al., 2016). The risks of self-reports being exaggerated,

biased, and unreliable raised concerns about the perceived effectiveness of harassment policies.

Furthermore, the autonomous nature of many sport organizations has reportedly interfered with

responsibility to uphold human rights; consequently, issues of accountability, transparency,

governance, and equitable representation is in question (Donnelly et al., 2016).


Given the sport organization’s responsibility in designing and enforcing policy,

harassment and abuse policies in sport represent a form of autonomous governance; “they were

not initiated by sport organizations themselves and, in Canada, they were only developed and

implemented in response to a crisis and the attendant media coverage, and at the behest of the

major funding agency, Sport Canada” (Donnelly et al., 2016, p. 37). Donnelly and colleagues

(2016) revealed that the harassment and abuse policies implemented over twenty years ago by

provincial and national sport organizations in Canada failed to meet the established policy

requirements outlined by Sport Canada; harassment policies were reportedly retrieved in only 36

of 42 sports reviewed, despite Sport Canada mandating all sport organizations requiring one. In

many of the policies, “important criteria are often missing…including comprehensive definitions

and examples of harassment/abuse, policy on coach-athlete sexual relations, a description of the

roles of the harassment officer and the rights of the complainant and respondent” (Donnelly et

al., 2016, p. 43). Additionally, only 14% of national sport organizations and 10% of provincial

sport organizations reported having a harassment officer available on an as-need basis, despite it

being a requirement from Sport Canada that a harassment officer be available at arms-length

(Donnelly et al., 2016). As well, of the organizations that had policies, most of them focused

primarily on sexual abuse, whereas less than 20% addressed other forms of maltreatment.

Overall, the evidence suggests that the absence of independent, arms-length harassment officers

and the lack of clear and logical abuse/harassment policies increases an athlete’s risk of

experiencing maltreatment in sport, contributes to the underreporting of maltreatment in sport,

and interferes with a sport organization’s ability to effectively investigate and respond to

allegations of abuse (Donnelly et al., 2016; Kirby et al., 2000). The occurrence of several cases


of athlete maltreatment in Canadian sport, including in alpine skiing, gymnastics, swimming, and

athletics, since the establishment of the SFAF signal a failed policy (Donnelly et al., 2016).

Limitations of Maltreatment Research in Sport

Despite the plethora of research that exists exploring maltreatment – within and outside

of sport – there are several limitations within this field of research. First, there are significant

gaps in the literature exploring maltreatment in sport. Most evident is the dearth of research

exploring certain forms of relational maltreatment, such as physical abuse and neglect; rather,

most of the research to date focuses on sexual abuse (Rhind & Owusu-Sekyere, 2018).

Furthermore, there is a lack of global representation when studying maltreatment. Specifically,

Brackenridge and colleagues (2012) suggested research focusing on the Global South is limited

and although safeguarding perspectives from South Africa, Japan, and China have been

considered in recent research (Lang & Hartill, 2015), studies continuously focus on an individual

region (Mori et al., 2015), such as the US, United Kingdom or Canada (Rhind & Owusu-

Sekyere, 2018), or other Westernized countries (Vertommen et al., 2016). Rhind and Owusu-

Sekyere (2018) explained “the over-generalisation of research to different contexts than that on

which the research was focused is going to lack the necessary reliability, validity or

trustworthiness to be theoretically or practically useful” (p. 6). Moreover, given that studies

emanate from the Global North, there is a concern that findings are not necessarily applicable in

other political, legal, economic, and cultural environments (Rhind & Owusu-Sekyere, 2018).

The definitional inconsistencies pertaining to maltreatment poses a unique set of

challenges. When referring to the harm experienced in sport, some scholars have referred to it

broadly as ‘maltreatment’ (Stirling, 2009), whereas others have used ‘abuse’ and ‘harassment’

(Mountjoy et al., 2016), or ‘interpersonal violence’ (Vertommen et al., 2016). The ideological


distinctions in how researchers conceptualize maltreatment suggests it is improbable for a

universal framework to be agreed upon and established globally for application (Rhind &

Owusu-Sekyere, 2018). The incongruent perspectives have caused significant challenges in

advancing safeguarding research (Porter et al., 2006). Additionally, the wavering perspectives

have interfered with researchers’ abilities to replicate studies and generalize findings (Stirling,

2009). Consequently, there have been inconsistencies across prevalence research due to the

distinct conceptualizations, sampling methods, response rates, and level of trustworthiness

among different studies (Rhind & Owusu-Sekyere, 2018). The lack of research in low-income

countries also skews the preciseness of prevalence data, thus providing a false sense of the

seriousness of maltreatment in the Global South (Rhind & Owusu-Sekyere, 2018). Finally,

maltreatment research is affected by the willingness of participants to openly disclose their

experiences of harm; this process may be challenging, especially for males, who are less likely to

report experiences of maltreatment because of preconceived notions of masculine identity

(Hartill, 2013).

Discourses of abuse in sport are typically positioned within an individual or interpersonal

approach (Rhind & Owusu-Sekyere, 2018). The individual approach focuses on the perpetrators’

and survivors’ experiences and perceptions of abuse, whereas the interpersonal approach focuses

“on understanding the relational dynamics involved in safeguarding and abuse” (Rhind &

Owusu-Sekyere, 2018, p. 5). The underlying assumption of these approaches was that sport

would become a safe space if sport monitored adult-child relationships, stakeholders in sport

became aware of the various forms of abuse that manifest in sport, and sport began regulating the

persons that gain access to athletes in sport (Boocock, 2002). Rhind and Owusu-Sekyere (2018)

argued the emphasis on interpersonal and individual approaches do not consider the salient


factors required to safeguard children; to advance the field, further considerations must be made

for the “organisational structures that bring consistency, standardisation and transparency to

safeguarding” (p. 5). Organizational systems in sport have normalized and justified abuse in

sport (Jacobs et al., 2016). Despite attempts made by organizations to safeguard children through

the implementation of ethical codes and related policies, children remain vulnerable to various

risks in sport because of the complicit and passive nature of sport organizations that fail to

reinforce these standards (Brackenridge et al., 2012). A systems approach has been

recommended to understand the organization’s role in preventing and responding to

maltreatment in sport, as this approach is believed to facilitate more sustainable and safer

experiences for all (Brackenridge & Rhind, 2014; Rhind & Owusu-Sekyere, 2018).

Summary

Relational maltreatment in the forms of physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse,

and neglect exist in sport and are associated with significant short- and long-term detrimental

effects on the physical, cognitive, behavioural, and psychosocial development of young persons.

The literature reveals the prevalence and complexity of these types of harm and the various ways

in which they manifest. Although emotional abuse is the most prevalent form of harm in sport, it

is often overlooked and justified as instrumental towards achieving specific sport outcomes.

Emerging literature illustrates the adverse outcomes of maltreatment. Future research should

consider global perspectives of maltreatment and a systems approach that considers the role of

the organization in preventing maltreatment.

Safe Sport

Empirical and anecdotal searches of the term “safe sport” yield varying topics of safety

such as concussion (Guskiewicz et al., 2014), injury prevention (Rühlemann et al., 2019),


diversity (Rich & Giles, 2015), and abuse and harassment (Mountjoy et al., 2020; Rhind et al.,

2015; Solstad & Strandbu, 2019). However, the latter tends to be the central focus of several

sport organizations. The subsequent sections address the developments of safe sport across

various countries, with a particular focus on the UK and the US where the establishment of

safeguarding sport and safe sport began, respectively.

Safe Sport in the UK

Lang and Hartill (2015) have alluded to safeguarding becoming the gold standard for

preventing maltreatment against children. In the UK, safeguarding is the statutory responsibility

of all individuals working with children. According to the Working Together to Safeguard

Children guide published by the UK’s Department of Education (2018), safeguarding is

comprised of four elements:

Protecting children from maltreatment; preventing impairment of children’s mental and

physical health or development; ensuring that children grow up in circumstances

consistent with the provision of safe and effective care; and taking action to enable all

children to have the best outcomes. (p. 7)

Rhind and Owusu-Sekyere (2018) claimed that all sport organizations should adopt a

safeguarding approach because it helps protect and promote the human rights of children in

sport. Protecting the human rights of children in sport is understood as the moral maxim that

stakeholders should strive for; any child can experience a safe environment or healthy

relationship within a sport organization, but not every child realizes it (Rhind & Owusu-Sekyere,

2018). Safeguarding is understood as the actions that are taken to guarantee all children and

youth are protected from harm (Hayhurst et al., 2016); although often used interchangeably with

child protection (Lang & Hartill, 2015), the terms are distinct, with child protection being


defined as the established procedures designed to protect children who are specifically at risk of

experiencing maltreatment or are already suffering from maltreatment (Hayhurst et al., 2016).

In 1995, when Paul Hickson, former British Olympic swimming coach, was sentenced to

jail for seventeen years for the sexual assault and rape of young athletes under his supervision,

there were no safeguarding strategies established within the Amateur Swimming Association, or

any other English sports organization (Lang & Hartill, 2015). The historic autonomy of sport in

England made the government unwilling to intervene and thus, sport organizations were exempt

from upholding child welfare legislation (Lang & Hartill, 2015). However, since Hickson’s

sentencing, “British sport has been positioned as a world leader in athlete welfare, with

developments from within and outside sport shaping the governance and practice of sport” (Lang

& Hartill, 2015, p. 13).

In England, following the Hickson scandal, several other cases of sexual abuse infiltrated

sport, specifically in the sports of karate, football, gymnastics, horse riding and diving; frequent

cases of child sexual abuse in sport stirred moral panic amongst the public (Lang & Hartill,

2015). Consequently, sport organizations experienced financial loss from dropped sponsorships

and various stakeholders in sport were pressured for immediate action to address reports of

sexual abuse. Through this came the collaboration of Sport England, the primary funder of

national governing bodies (NGBs), with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to

Children (NSPCC), in 2000 (Lang & Hartill, 2015). Collectively, these organizations formed a

“Child Protection in Sport Task Force”, like Canada’s working group; the assigned task force

developed a detailed plan of action to safeguard children and youth in sport, which eventually led

to the creation of the Child Protection in Sport Unit (CPSU) in 2001 (Lang & Hartill, 2015, p.

16). The CPSU represented the “first government-backed agency with responsibility for


safeguarding and child protection in sport” (Lang & Hartill, 2015, p. 16). Effective immediately,

the CPSU began implementing the task force’s action plan by developing sport-specific

resources that educated national sport bodies on topics such as child welfare and protection,

inclusion, codes of conduct, and whistleblowing (Lang & Hartill, 2015). Additionally, similar to

Canada, funding for NGBs became contingent on the implementation of policies pertaining to

child welfare and protection; by 2002, every NGB funded by Sport England had such a policy in

effect (Boocock, 2002).

To better protect children in sport, the CPSU developed the Standards for Safeguarding

and Protecting Children in Sport, which were introduced in 2003; funding became conditional

for NGBs, who were expected to work towards the Standards (Lang & Hartill, 2015). There are

ten standards for NGBs to strive to achieve: policy and procedures for responding to concerns,

operating systems, prevention, codes of ethics and conduct, equity, communication, education

and training, access to advice and support, implementation and monitoring, and influencing

(Child Protection in Sport Unit, 2018c). Lang and Hartill (2015) noted that the Standards “focus

on protecting children from, and managing cases of, abuse, but they also cover broader

safeguarding concerns, for example encouraging strategies to promote equity” (p. 16). The

promotion of equity within the Standards is seen as a distinguishable moment for safe(guarding)

sport. Early on, many countries, such as Canada, focused their attention on preventing abuse in

sport as a means of protecting athletes (e.g., implementation of the SFAF); however, the efforts

made by CPSU reflected a commitment to establishing a rights-based culture of sport, whereby

every participant is aware of the inherent values and potential of sport. In addition to promoting

equity, the CPSU Standards acknowledged the right of all children and youth to have fun and be

safe in sport (Boocock, 2002). As part of the Standards, NGBs were required to have a


designated team responsible for everything related to child protection and safeguarding, all

stakeholders working with children or vulnerable populations were required to complete a

criminal background check, sport clubs had to employ a Club Welfare (or Protection) Officer,

and NGBs were required to “have a national safeguarding lead officer (LO)” (Lang & Hartill,

2015, p. 16). Furthermore, the Standards required all NGB staff to complete child protection and

safeguarding training every three years, which despite its challenges (i.e., costly, time

consuming) was understood as the most effective means of enacting behaviour change (Lang &

Hartill, 2015). In 2012, to enhance the child protection and safeguarding strategies of NGBs, the

CPSU created the Sports Safeguarding Framework (Lang & Hartill, 2015). NGBs who

successfully achieved the Standards for Safeguarding would be required to audit their current

position, as it relates to safeguarding sport, against four stages: forming, developing, embedding,

or continually improving. Like the Standards, NGB funding is linked to adhering to the Post-

Standards Framework (Lang & Hartill, 2015). To date, the Standards for Safeguarding and the

Post-Safeguarding Framework have not been extensively evaluated; concerns relating to self-

reporting challenge the accuracy of the reports submitted by NGBs.

Finally, in 2013, to further support NGBs in England throughout their child protection

and safeguarding efforts, “an independent National Safeguarding Panel for Sport (NSP) was

established” (Lang & Hartill, 2015, p. 16). The NSP was comprised of solicitors, as well as

professionals such as social workers and police officers, who were responsible for conducting

investigations related to abuse and safeguarding for NGBs and served as arbitrators in major

disciplinary hearings (CPSU, 2013; Lang & Hartill, 2015). Today, the United Kingdom’s Child

Protection in Sport Unit (CPSU) (2020a), is a collaboration of four agencies – Sport England,

Sport Wales, Sport Northern Ireland, and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to


Children – that advocate for safe sport through a safeguarding lens. The CPSU (2020a) defined

safeguarding as “the process of protecting children (and adults) to provide safe and effective

care. This includes all procedures designed to prevent harm to a child.” In addition to

safeguarding, the CPSU recognized the importance of promoting child welfare as a means of

achieving an equitable, rights-based culture of sport.

Safe Sport in the US

The scandalous reports of abuse that have invaded US sport, such as the cases of Jerry

Sandusky within Penn State University and Larry Nassar within Michigan State University and

USA Gymnastics, had influenced the development of safe sport, an initiative that has developed

to signify the commitment made by sport organizations and governing bodies to protect athletes

through the prevention of abuse. Historically, egregious acts of abuse have infiltrated sport and

although measures have been adopted to address harm in sport, sport organizations have

repeatedly received criticism for their subpar response (Koller, 2018). Finally pressured to

respond, the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) assembled a working group in 2010 to

offer recommendations concerning the range of harmful behaviours that negatively impact

athletes’ participation in sport, including emotional abuse, hazing, bullying, and sexual

misconduct (Cahil, 2012; Koller, 2018). There were four objectives set by the working group:

address physical and sexual misconduct in sport, review the guidelines of sport and sport-related

organizations for responding to misconduct, conduct a needs assessment of sport stakeholders

(e.g., coaches, athletes, national governing bodies, sport organizations), and develop

recommendations to promote athlete welfare (Cahil, 2012). In 2011, the first known SafeSport

director was hired to develop a comprehensive programme, including education, resources,

policies, and training, addressing misconduct in sport (Cahil, 2012) and in 2012, the USOC


declared the launch of SafeSport, a training programme designed to improve athlete safety

(Koller, 2018). In the same year, the USOC would trademark the term SafeSport, thus

establishing the earliest interpretation of this concept (Moskovitz, 2018). SafeSport was

reportedly established to provide the following goods and services:

Promoting public awareness of the need to prevent the maltreatment of athletes in

organized sport; Educational services, namely, conducting classes, seminars,

presentations and workshops, in the field of preventing the maltreatment of athletes in

organized sport, and the distribution of course materials in connection therewith;

Developing voluntary standards, policies and procedures for athletic training, coaching,

and mentoring and sports participation and competition organization to prevent the

maltreatment of athletes in organized sport. (United States Patent and Trademark Office,

2012)

The original purpose of the SafeSport programme was to “creat[e] and maintain a sport

community where all persons who participated in sport programs and activities can work and

learn together in an atmosphere free of all forms of emotional, physical and sexual misconduct”

(Koller, 2018, p. 1057). An 80-page handbook entitled, Recognizing, Reducing and Responding

to Misconduct in Sport: Creating Your Strategy, was released to support the design,

implementation, and internal review of athlete well-being and behavioural misconduct

prevention policies for national, regional, and local sport organizations (Cahil, 2012). Moreover,

a website including resources, such as best practices, policies, professional training videos, and

educational training programmes was launched to support stakeholders in sport and a SafeSport

Legal Referral Network was developed, comprised of legal professionals who voluntarily

committed to investigating allegations of athlete maltreatment, free of charge (Cahil, 2012).


In 2015, the Congress’ Government Accountability Office (GAO) developed a report

delineating best practices and policies aimed at preventing and responding to acts of sexual

misconduct against athletes (Koller, 2018). Years later, allegations made against Dr. Larry

Nassar of USA Gymnastics provoked legislative changes (Koller, 2018). In 2017, Dr. Larry

Nassar, former team doctor for USA Gymnastics and team physician at Michigan State

University, received his first federal sentence of sixty years for child pornography; shortly after,

Nassar was sentenced to 40-175 years by a Michigan court for criminal sexual misconduct, with

many civil claims still pending (Koller, 2018). Following these events, within the context of

Olympic sport, legislation was approved by Congress “that establishes new reporting

requirements and expands the obligations of NGBs [national governing bodies] with respect to

preventing and responding to sexual abuse of amateur athletes” (Koller, 2018, p. 1030). The

reformed legislation signified an amendment to the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports

Act, “the law that established the modern US Olympic Movement structure and the USOC’s

obligations” (Koller, 2018, p. 1030). In 2018, the United States Congress enacted the Protecting

Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017. The amended act

demanded that national bodies of sport develop stronger policies that function to prevent the

sexual abuse of athletes and ensures allegations of abuse are appropriately managed (Koller,

2018). Specifically, the policy was designed, “To prevent the sexual abuse of minors and

amateur athletes by requiring the prompt reporting of sexual abuse to law enforcement

authorities, and for other purposes” (Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe

Sport Authorization Act of 2017, 2018). The amended legislation authorized the United States

Center for SafeSport to serve as the independent national safe sport organization, authorized “to

promote a safe environment in sports that is free from abuse, including emotional, physical, and


sexual abuse, of any amateur athlete” (Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe

Sport Authorization Act of 2017, 2018, p. 320). Albeit legislation seemingly focused on

preventing athlete abuse, Koller (2018) indicated:

The original statute was (and continues to be) mostly aimed at empowering the USOC to

field high-quality Olympic teams and ensuring that athletes and others are provided with

procedures for the swift and appropriate resolution of disputes affecting an athlete’s

ability to compete. (p. 1030)

In the same year that Nassar was first prosecuted, the US Center for SafeSport officially opened

in Denver, Colorado (Koller, 2018). The organization is comprised of two offices; one office is

solely responsible for developing education and outreach (e.g., preventing athlete abuse, raising

awareness, and promoting a positive sport culture) and the second office is tasked with

investigating and resolving allegations and violations of the SafeSport code (Koller, 2018).

While the establishment of the US Center for SafeSport (2018) represents a determined effort

legislated by USOC to eliminate abuse in sport, in operation, this organization focuses only on

sexual abuse, thus reinforcing the erroneous assumption that sexual abuse is the most frequent or

harmful form of maltreatment.

Other International Safe Sport Initiatives

The emergence of the CPSU in the UK and SafeSport in the United States has led to

other international developments in the field. For example, in 2016, the International Olympic

Committee (IOC) prepared a consensus statement addressing harassment and abuse in sport and

defined the term safe sport as “an athletic environment that is respectful, equitable and free from

all forms of non-accidental violence to athletes” (Mountjoy et al., 2016, p. 2). The consensus

statement represented an updated extension of the 2007 IOC Consensus Statement on Sexual


Harassment and Abuse in Sport and included current research on additional forms of non-

accidental injury, such as physical abuse and neglect as well as reference to the term safe sport

(Mountjoy et al., 2016). This definition of safe sport has been adopted by sport organizations

around the world committed to advancing a culture of sport safety. For example, Sport Singapore

(2020) used the same definition when defining safe sport; additionally, this organization

developed a Safe Sport Commission, comprised of multiple sport organizations tasked with

implementing safe sport initiatives to promote best practices and values in sport, protect the

integrity of sport, and safeguard athletes, participants, and officials from sexual abuse, sexual

harassment, psychological abuse, neglect, and physical abuse. Recently, in September 2020, the

IOC announced the approved establishment of the International Safeguarding Officer in Sport

Certificate; the five-month certificate will be launched in September 2021 and represents a first

of its kind, given the absence of similar educational courses or training standards available for

safeguarding officers at the international level (IOC, 2020).

Similarly, Safe Sport International (2019) is an international advocacy body committed to

the global eradication of all violence, harassment, and abuse against athletes of any age in sport.

Safe Sport International (2019) established ten principles defining safe and appropriate conduct

and expectations that reportedly benefits every past, present, and future athlete. The principles

advocate for all stakeholders to acquire safe sport training and background screenings as a

condition of their qualifications to participate in sport; that sport organizations design and

enforce policies and ethical codes to aid in the prevention of safe sport related issues; that reports

of harm be investigated and acted upon by appropriate authorities; that breaches of safe sport be

recorded in a system and the data be used to evaluate and enhance safe sport practices; fair,

disciplinary, suspension, and reinstatement procedures be established to address subjects of


complaints; and athletes become educated about their rights to being safeguarded from harm and

are aware of how to report concerns about their safety or the safety of others. To achieve these

principles, Safe Sport International offers sport organizations consultancy and training support to

enhance their delivery of safe sport.

In Europe, the Council of Europe declared that the protection of athletes is a critical

element of the European Sports Charter and the Code of Sports Ethics. In their conceptualization

of safe sport, topics such as inclusion, sexual violence, migration and trafficking of young

athletes entering Europe, and the danger of mixed martial arts and combat practices are

addressed (Council of Europe, 2020a). Unfortunately, despite efforts from the Council of

Europe, several countries still do not have well-established safe(guarding) sport procedures. In

Germany, the concept of safeguarding does not exist; rather, ‘child protection’ has been used

frequently, however, it refers strictly to the prevention of sexual abuse and harassment (Rulofs,

2015). Both Greece and the Republic of Cyprus lack policy, education, research, and support for

safeguarding children from maltreatment and other forms of misconduct in sport; “neither

country has developed codes of conduct for people working for and with children in sport, nor do

they have any recognizable system of child protection in sport” to promote athlete rights and

protect them from abuse (Chroni & Papaefstathiou, 2015, p. 58). Toftegaard-Støckel (2015)

described how stakeholders in Denmark have historically denied the existence of sexual abuse in

sport until scandals in sport were publicized in the 1990s. Over twenty years later, stakeholders

acknowledged the presence of sexual abuse in sport, however, rejected the seriousness of the

problem (Toftegaard-Støckel, 2015). As such, “the terms ‘safeguarding’ and ‘child protection’

are still not an active part of the vocabulary of organized sport in Denmark”, major sport

organizations in Denmark are not mandated to implement strategies that safeguard children and


youth in sport, and the implementation of codes of ethics for coaches, parents, and athletes

remain optional (Toftegaard-Støckel, 2015, p. 28). In Belgium, issues pertaining to child

maltreatment in sport did not emerge until 2010, when allegations of sexual abuse perpetrated by

clergy members in the Roman Catholic Church became known (Belgian Chamber of

Representatives, 2011). According to Vertommen and colleagues (2015), various sport

organizations, as well as the Belgian Olympic and Interfederal Committee (BOIC),

acknowledged the absence of established mechanisms to respond to and intervene in allegations

of maltreatment in sport. BOIC responded by organizing a symposium on sexual abuse, which

led to the advancement of four safeguarding procedures: establish a central reporting body to

address maltreatment in and out of sport, assign welfare officers in every sport organization and

club, invest in coach education to improve coaches’ knowledge of maltreatment in sport, and

create an advocacy campaign to raise stakeholders’ awareness of maltreatment in sport

(Vertommen et al., 2015). Among these recommendations, the mandating of criminal

background checks was not enforced with fear that it may discourage volunteers from

participating in sport and because it may be difficult to maintain (Vertommen et al., 2015).

Safe Sport Africa (2020) is a not-for-profit consisting of various sport organizations from

across the continent of Africa who are devoted to safeguarding all participants in sport from non-

accidental harm. For this organization, the concept of safeguarding refers to every sport

organization’s responsibility to ensure that children and vulnerable adults are protected from

harm, including abuse, harassment, exploitation, and bullying. In South Africa, legislation

focused on safeguarding athletes from maltreatment became evident in the late 1990s with the

ratification of the National Sport and Recreation Act of 1998 and eventually the South African

Council for Educators Act of 2000 (Van Niekerk, 2015). The legislative acts require any


individual working within schools or sport organizations to act in ways that reflect a commitment

to always keeping children and youth safe and requires adults – including teachers, parents,

coaches – to report allegations of sexual abuse to authorities (Van Niekerk, 2015). Additionally,

according to the National Sport and Recreation Act of 1998, sport organizations have the right to

investigate claims made by a child who reports their rights or freedoms have been infringed upon

(Van Niekerk, 2015). Although progressive, there have been no investigations of sexual abuse

allegations, despite there being several criminal cases made against coaches in sport; it is

suspected that sport organizations do not fully comprehend the ethical and legal ramifications of

not reporting sexual abuse or exploitation and that sport organizations refrain from reporting

because they want to avoid negative publicity or because they do not want to deal with the issue

(Singh, 2006; Van Niekerk, 2015). According to Van Niekerk (2015), Swimming South Africa is

the only exception. In 2010, the organization released “a child protection policy on its

website…in response to calls for clearer regulations for coaches working with children, and out

of awareness that close but professional interaction between children and adults is crucial to the

sport’s development” (Van Niekerk, 2015, p. 94). The policy is considered a first of its kind

within South African sport and includes sections that acknowledge the rights of children and

youth and the procedures required to report maltreatment in sport (Van Niekerk, 2015).

In 2019, former Canadian Federal Minister of Science in Sport, The Honourable Kirsty

Duncan, announced an investment of $30 million over a five-year span to support Canadian sport

organizations in advancing safe, equitable, ethical, and accessible sport for all (Government of

Canada, 2019). Since then, many national sport organizations in Canada, including Athletics

Canada (2020), Gymnastics Canada (2020), Tennis Canada (2020), and Swimming Canada

(2020) to name a few, have developed safe sport programmes to advance a culture of safe sport,


with many more organizations following suit. In the latest Safe Sport training launched by the

Coaching Association of Canada (2020), safe sport is defined as:

Our collective responsibility to create, foster and preserve sport environments that ensure

positive, healthy and fulfilling experiences for all individuals. A safe sport environment is

one in which all sport stakeholders recognize and report acts of maltreatment and

prioritize the welfare, safety and rights of every person at all times.

In Canada, another major sport-related body, Sport for Life, advanced their own definition of

safe sport, which stated:

Safe sport provides a training and competitive environment for athletes, coaches,

officials, and volunteers that is free of abuse, harassment, and discrimination.

Organizations have policies and procedures in place that are consistent with national

sport standards to ensure sport participants are safe. Additionally, safety includes the

physical aspect of the equipment and training practices. (Higgs et al., 2019, p. 11)

Although both definitions advanced by the Coaching Association of Canada (CAC) and Sport for

Life focused on preventing maltreatment in sport, the definition proposed by Sport for Life

expands to include topics of safety related to the use of proper equipment and appropriate

training practices, whereas the CAC’s interpretation focuses on the prioritization of rights. The

distinction further complicates discourses of safe sport due to inconsistent definitions being

advanced in the Canadian sport system. Overall, safe sport in Canada has been characterized as

reactive; Canadian sport responds to maltreatment after it occurs, while remaining silent against

prevention and the underlying determinants that encourage or perpetuate acts of maltreatment in

sport (Kerr et al., 2020a). Kerr and colleagues (2020a) elaborated:


The efforts to date have failed to address the culture of sport as it relates to healthy child

development, including the development of athletic talent in young people. Nor have the

funding structures that encourage performance success over all else been addressed in

any substantial manner. (p. 79)

Summary

The safe sport movement has emerged in response to several national and international

cases of maltreatment in sport. Original conceptions focused primarily on the prevention of

sexual abuse in sport; however, discourses of safe sport have evolved to focus on additional

forms of maltreatment. Despite the concerted effort of eradicating abuse in sport, the literature

suggests there remains definitional inconsistencies when describing safe sport and individuals

most affected by harm – athletes – are more often unaware of what safe sport entails, with

definitions including topics of fair play and general safety. Further, the United Kingdom adopted

a safeguarding framework to address safe sport; safeguarding’s focus on preventing harm and

promoting child welfare in sport suggests that the safe sport movement explore the relevance of

human rights in preventing maltreatment in sport. The harm perpetuated in sport may be

explained by the belief that it is easier to endorse human rights, rather than enforce them (Hunt,

2007). As such, the establishment of human rights does not suggest one will automatically reap

the civilizing benefits associated with such rights. This appears to be the case with experiences of

maltreatment in sport. The maltreatment of athletes exemplifies a violation of human rights in

sport (Donnelly & Petherick, 2004; Kerr et al., 2020a). Although policies are in place

highlighting the rights of participants to access and experience safe sport and physical activity,

research indicates that the occurrence of maltreatment in sport is prevalent and affects athletes of


every age, gender, and culture. The subsequent sections elaborate on the recommendations and

strategies required to advance safe sport.

Advancing Safe Sport

With increasing media attention on various athletes who have reported experiences of

abuse throughout their career, a greater emphasis has been placed on “governing bodies,

authorities and practitioners in sport” to implement policies to ensure athlete well-being is

maintained (Stirling, 2009, p. 1091). Several international and national sport organizations have

designed and implemented safeguards to advance safe sport and protect athletes from abuse. The

International Safeguards for Children in Sport (Founder Members Group, 2014) suggested eight

safeguarding components required to develop effective prevention programmes: developing your

policy, procedures for responding to safeguarding concerns, advice and support, minimising risks

to children, guidelines for behaviour, recruiting/training/communicating, working with partners,

and monitoring/evaluation. For sport organizations to effectively implement the recommended

international safeguards, consideration must be made for ‘CHILDREN’, an acronym that

highlights eight pillars of successful implementation: cultural sensitivity, holistic, incentives,

leadership, dynamic, resources, engaging stakeholders, networks (Mountjoy et al., 2015).

To prevent abuse, reduce tolerance, and ultimately, advance safe sport, Mountjoy and

colleagues (2016) recommended in the IOC consensus statement that “a systematic multiagency

approach” is required, which “incudes reviews of law enforcement strategies, culturally tailored

education for athletes, parents, athlete entourage, fans, sponsors and sports administrators, and

implementation of policy and procedures within the sports community” (p. 1024). Additionally,

the 2016 IOC consensus statement outlined several recommendations directed towards sport

organizations, athletes, sports medicine and allied health practitioners, and sport science


researchers. Recommendations included: deliver educational programmes addressing the realities

of preventing violence and abuse for the main stakeholders of sport, design, implement, and

monitor policies that convey athletes’ right to be respected and safeguarded from abuse (sport

organizations); understand your rights and duty in preventing and reporting harm, encourage

your peers to report acts or suspicions of abuse (athletes); understand the procedures required to

refer suspicions or disclosures of abuse, ensure that you have the appropriate training to

recognize and respond to signs, symptoms, and disclosures of abuse (sports medicine and allied

health practitioners); conduct research to enhance the field’s understanding of athlete abuse; and

commit to transferring knowledge so that it may be used practically in the field (Mountjoy et al.,

2016). Many sport organizations, both nationally and internationally, have adopted methods of

delivering and enforcing education and policies, as recommended by the IOC consensus

statement.

In the prevalence study conducted by Kerr, Willson, and Stirling (2019), current and

retired National athletes were asked to offer recommendations for advancing safe sport; the

participants endorsed the development and implementation of a neutral, third-party independent

body to support victimized athletes in sport. The participants advised that the independent body

be unaffiliated with any national or provincial sport organization and be responsible for

investigating and adjudicating complaints. The participants also insisted that all forms of

maltreatment be addressed in safe sport policies and education, rather than strictly sexual abuse,

and that education become available and mandatory for all stakeholders of sport. Additionally,

athletes recommended that accountability measures be strengthened, which ensure national sport

organizations and more specifically, coaches, are adhering to policies and best practices. Finally,

various forms of support and supplementary resources must be readily available for all victims of


maltreatment, all sexual relationships between athletes and persons in positions of power (e.g.,

coach) be prohibited, and that there would be an enhanced focus on promoting the holistic

welfare of athletes.

There are many components for a sport organization to consider in establishing an

independent complaint system. Kerr and Kerr (2020) recommended “that a central command

centre would be needed which would act as the receiver of information which would allow the

piecing together of disparate information to build up an understanding of the narrow slices where

maltreatment occurs” (p. 100). In addition to a command centre that would provide information,

reports must be filed to an independent body that is not affiliated with any sport organization;

this ensures no conflicts of interest interfere with the complaint process and allows the

independent body to freely determine how complaints should be handled (e.g., report to police,

child protection services, or an independent investigator outside of the sport organization) (Kerr

et al., 2020b). If an independent body determines that an investigation is required, it will be

carried out by an independent investigator who has no affiliation with the sport body under

investigation or no conflict of interest with any individual associated with the complaint (e.g., the

complainant or the respondent) (Kerr & Kerr, 2020; Kerr et al., 2020b). Furthermore, if it is

determined by the independent investigator that a complaint should be further evaluated through

a hearing and adjudication process, then there must be no association or conflict of interest

between the hearing panel members and the sport organization or stakeholders affiliated with the

complaint (i.e., establish an independent adjudication process) (Kerr et al., 2020a); additionally,

any decisions made in response to the complaint must be done in the absence of the sport

organization’s input or involvement (Kerr et al., 2020b). Finally, various resources (e.g., legal,


educational, support services) must be available to stakeholders affected by maltreatment or the

complaint (Kerr & Kerr, 2020; Kerr et al., 2020b).

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) Bioecological Systems Theory has been used to examine the

modes of intervention that have been designed and enforced by sport organizations to confront

athlete maltreatment (Kerr & Kerr, 2020). There are five levels of environment, or ecological

systems, to Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory to be considered. The first level –

individual – focuses on shifting the knowledge, beliefs, and skills of individuals; within sport,

this change is fostered through the delivery of education programmes that serve to enhance

athletes’ knowledge about safe sport (e.g., appropriate relationships, maltreatment, harmful

behaviours, and reporting mechanisms). The second level – microsystem – is the most impactful

level that considers the individual’s interpersonal relationships (e.g., coach-athlete, parent-

athlete, athlete-athlete) and immediate, surrounding environments. Initiatives at this level focus

on the delivery of codes of conduct or educational programmes designed to increase coaches’

and parents’ awareness of appropriate behaviour in sport and maltreatment in sport. The third

level – mesosystem – “considers interactions between the different parts of an individual’s

microsystem which have an indirect impact on the individual” (Kerr & Kerr, 2020, p. 97); for

example, the parent-coach relationship of an athlete may influence the athlete’s development in

various ways. At this level of prevention, consideration is made for the roles and responsibilities

of sport organizations to influence parent, coach, and sport administrator conduct. Sport

organizations have reportedly developed athlete protection policies, characterized by the

recognition of harmful behaviours, to increase stakeholders’ awareness of maltreatment in sport.

The fourth level – exosystem – reflects the relationships held between organizations; although

athletes are not actively present at this level, they are nonetheless affected by the decisions made.


Harm prevention at this level occurs through the collaboration and establishment of

organizations committed to safeguarding athletes in sport. For example, Safe Sport International

is a collaborative agency partnering with multiple agencies to advance safe sport internationally.

Similarly, the Child Protection in Sport Unit in the United Kingdom represents a collaboration

between Sport England, Sport Wales, Sport Northern Ireland, and the National Society for the

Prevention of Cruelty to Children; this partnership functions to deliver and enforce education and

policies that protect athletes from maltreatment. The final level – macrosystem – “include

international, national, and local laws, regulations and policies, cultural, and societal beliefs”

(e.g., the International Olympic Committee Toolkit for IFs and NOCs) (Kerr & Kerr, 2020, p.

98).

Kerr and Kerr (2020) noted that interventions at the macrosystem level are

underdeveloped; the authors recommended the implementation of an international governance

model whereby occurrences of maltreatment are exclusively visible. Practically, a visible

surveillance system may include a publicly accessible online manual that clearly and consistently

defines maltreatment in sport and continuously collects specific information about maltreatment,

through a helpline or the collection of reports, thus serving as a constant form of surveillance in

sport (Kerr & Kerr, 2020).

Summary

Multiple strategies have been proposed to advance safe sport (i.e., eliminate

maltreatment) from sport. Whereas several organizations have implemented strategies such as

education and policies, these strategies have been criticized for not being empirically or

theoretically informed or entirely upheld by governing bodies. To effectively advance safe sport,


an independent surveillance system responsible for managing reports, investigations, and

decisions relating to maltreatment is recommended.


Purpose Statement

The purpose of this dissertation was to understand sport stakeholders’ conceptualizations and

experiences of safe sport, and to elicit their recommendations for advancing safe sport.

Overview of the Studies

The ensuing three chapters delve into stakeholders’ conceptualizations and experiences of

safe sport, and their recommendations for advancing safe sport. In Chapter Three, Study 1, a

constructivist grounded theory methodology is employed to investigate stakeholders’

conceptualizations of safe sport. Chapter Four, Study 2, used an interpretive phenomenological

analysis to explore safe sport as experienced by athletes with under-represented identities.

Finally, Chapter Five, Study 3, uses a constructivist grounded theory methodology to explore

sport administrators’ recommendations for advancing safe sport.


References

Abrams, M., & Bartlett, M. L. (2019). #SportToo: Implications of and best practice for the

#MeToo movement in sport. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 13(2), 243-258.

https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2018-0065

Adams, A., & Piekarz, M. (2015). Sport events and human rights: Positive promotion or negative

erosion? Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 7(3), 220–236.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2014.997864

Alexander, K., Stafford, A., & Lewis, R. (2011). The experiences of children participating in

organized sport in the UK. NSPCC.

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2000). Intensive training and sports specialization in

young athletes. Pediatrics, 106(1), 154–157.

Arnow, B. A. (2004). Relationships between childhood maltreatment, adult health and

psychiatric outcome, and medical utilization. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 65, 10–15

Athletics Canada. (2020). Safe sport. Athletics Canada. https://athletics.ca/safesport/

Barnes, J. (1996). Sports and the law in Canada (3rd edition). Butterworths.

Basterfield, L., Reilly, J. K., Pearce, M. S., Parkinson, K. N., Adamson, A. J., Reilly, J. J., &

Vella, S. A. (2014). Longitudinal associations between sports participation, body

composition and physical activity from childhood to adolescence. Journal of Science and

Medicine in Sport, 18(2), 178-182.

Battaglia, A. V., Kerr, G. A., & Stirling, A. E. (2017). Youth athletes’ interpretations of punitive

coaching practices. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 0, 1-16.

Battaglia, A., Kerr, G., & Stirling, A. (2018). An outcast from the team: Exploring youth ice

hockey goalies’ benching experiences. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 38, 39-46.

https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2018-0065

https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2014.997864

https://athletics.ca/safesport/


BBC. (2018, February 15). Football sex abuse: Who is Barry Bennell? BBC.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38104681

BBC. (2019, May 23). Football coach Bob Higgins guilty of abusing trainees. BBC.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-48295837

Belgian Chamber of Representatives. (2011). Report special commission on the

handling of sexual abuse and facts of paedophilia in a relationship of authority

in particular within the church.

https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/53/0520/53K0520002.pdf

Bloodworth, A. J., & McNamee, M. J. (2017). Sport, society, and anti-doping policy: An ethical

overview. Medicine and Sport Science, 62, 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1159/000460748

Bonde, H. (2009). The time and speed ideology: 19th century industrialisation and sport. The

International Journal of the History of Sport, 26(10), 1315-1334.

Boocock, S. (2002). The child protection in sport unit. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 8(2), 99-

106.

Bowman, P. (2020). In toxic hating masculinity: MMA hard men and media representation.

Sport in History, 40(3), 395-410. https://doi.org/10.1080/17460263.2020.1756394

Brackenridge, C. (1997). ‘He owned me basically…’: Women’s experience of sexual abuse in

sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 32(2), 115-130.

Brackenridge, C. H. (2001). Spoil Sports. Routledge.

Brackenridge, C. H., Bishopp, D., Moussall, S., & Tapp, J. (2008). The characteristics of sexual

abuse in sport: A multidimensional scaling analysis of events described in media reports.

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6, 385–406.

Brackenridge, C., Bringer, J., & Bishop, D. (2005). Managing cases of abuse in sport. Child

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38104681

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-48295837

https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/53/0520/53K0520002.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1159/000460748

https://doi.org/10.1080/17460263.2020.1756394


Abuse Review, 14, 259–274.

Brackenridge, C. H., Kay, T., & Rhind, D. J. A. (2012). Sport, children’s rights and violence

prevention: A sourcebook on global issues and local programmes. Brunel University

Press.

Brackenridge, C. H., & Rhind, D. (2014). Child protection in sport: Reflections on thirty years

of science and activism. Social Sciences, 3, 326–340.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.

Burak, L. J., Rosenthal, M., & Richardson, K. (2013). Examining attitudes, beliefs, and

intentions regarding the use of exercise as punishment in physical education and sport:

An application of the theory of reasoned action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

43, 1436-1445.

CAAWS. (1994). Harassment in sport: A guide to policies, procedures and resources.

http://www.caaws.ca/e/archives/article.cfm?id=1289&search=harassment

Cahil, C. (2012, March 16). U.S. Olympic committee launches safe sport program. Team USA.

https://www.teamusa.org/media/news/usopc/US-Olympic-Committee-launches-Safe-

Sport-program

Carpenter, L. J., & Acosta, R. V. (2005). Title IX. Human Kinetics.

Cherry, P. (2020, March 31). Former national ski coach Bertrand Charest granted full

parole. Montreal Gazette. https://montrealgazette.com/news/former-national-ski-

coach-bertrand-charest-granted-full-parole

Child Protection in Sport Unit. (2020a). What is safeguarding?

https://thecpsu.org.uk/help-advice/introduction-to-safeguarding/what-is-safeguarding/

Child Protection in Sport Unit. (2020b). Prevalence study into abuse in sport.

http://www.caaws.ca/e/archives/article.cfm?id=1289&search=harassment

https://www.teamusa.org/media/news/usopc/US-Olympic-Committee-launches-Safe-Sport-program


https://montrealgazette.com/news/former-national-ski-coach-bertrand-charest-granted-full-parole

https://montrealgazette.com/news/former-national-ski-coach-bertrand-charest-granted-full-parole

https://thecpsu.org.uk/help-advice/introduction-to-safeguarding/what-is-safeguarding/


https://thecpsu.org.uk/news/2020-07-prevalence-study-into-abuse-in-sport/

Child Protection in Sport Unit (2018c). Standards for safeguarding and protecting children in

sport. https://thecpsu.org.uk/media/445556/web_cpsustandards.pdf

Christie, J. (1996, September 21). Amateur sport told to fight harassment. Globe and Mail.

Chroni, S., & Papaefstathiou, M. (2015). Safeguarding and child protection in sport in two

southern European countries: Greece and the Republic of Cyprus. In M. Lang & M.

Hartill (Eds.), Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in Sport: International

perspectives in research, policy and practice (pp. 58-67). Routledge.

Coaching Association of Canada. (2020). Safe sport training. https://safesport.coach.ca/

Coakley, J. J. (2007). Sports in society: Issues & controversies. McGraw-Hill Higher

Education.

Collins, J. (2013, May 6). Why NBA center Jason Collins is coming out now. Sports

Illustrated. https://www.si.com/more-sports/2013/04/29/jason-collinsgay-nba-player

Connelly, C. (2014, February 10). Mizzou’s Michael Sam says he’s gay. Outside the Lines.

ESPN. http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10429030/michael-sam-missouri-

tigers-says-gay

Council of Europe. (2020a). Safe sport. https://www.coe.int/en/web/sport/safe-sport

Council of Europe. (1992, September 24). The European sports charter.

https://docplayer.net/147215-The-european-sports-charter.html

Côté, J. (2006). The development of coaching knowledge. International Journal of Sports

Science & Coaching, 1(3), 217-222.

Crooks, C. V., & Wolfe, D. A. (2007). Child abuse and neglect. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley

(Eds.), Assessment of Childhood Disorders (4th Ed.). Guilford Press.

https://thecpsu.org.uk/news/2020-07-prevalence-study-into-abuse-in-sport/

https://thecpsu.org.uk/media/445556/web_cpsustandards.pdf

https://safesport.coach.ca/

https://www.si.com/more-sports/2013/04/29/jason-collinsgay-nba-player

http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10429030/michael-sam-missouri-tigers-says-gay

http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10429030/michael-sam-missouri-tigers-says-gay

https://www.coe.int/en/web/sport/safe-sport



Daneshvar, D. H., Baugh, C. M., Nowinski, C. J., McKee, A. C., Stern, R. A., & Cantu, R. C.

(2011). Helmets and mouth guards: The role of personal equipment in preventing sport-

related concussions. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 30(1), 145-163.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csm.2010.09.006

Daube, M., & Thomas, S. L. (2016). Promoting harm? The responsibilities of sports

administrators. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 40(2), 103.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12534

David, P. (1999). Children’s rights and sports: Young athletes and competitive sports –

exploitation. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 7, 53–81.

David, P. (2005). Human rights in youth sport: A critical review of children’s rights in

competitive sports. Routledge.

Department of Education. (2018, July). Working together to safeguard children: A guide to inter-

agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_

data/file/942454/Working_together_to_safeguard_children_inter_agency_guidance.pdf

Donnelly, P. (2008). Sport and human rights. Sport in Society, 11(4), 381-394.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17430430802019326

Donnelly, P., Kerr, G., Heron, A., & DiCarlo, D. (2016). Protecting youth in sport: An

examination of harassment policies. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics,

8(1), 33-50.

Donnelly, P., & Petherick, L. (2004). Workers’ playtime? Child labour at the extremes of the

sporting spectrum. Sport in Society, 7(3), 301-321.

Dubowitz, H., Pitts, S., & Black, M. (2004). Measurement of three major subtypes of neglect.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csm.2010.09.006

https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12534

https://doi.org/10.1080/17430430802019326


Child Maltreatment, 9(4), 344-356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559504269191

Durrant, J. E., & Ensom, R. (2004). Joint statement on physical punishment of children and

youth. Coalition on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth.

Egeland, B. (2009). Taking stock: Childhood emotional maltreatment and developmental

psychopathology. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 22-26.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.004

Eime, R. M., Young, J. A., Harvey, J. T., Charity, M. J., & Payne, W. R. (2013). A systematic

review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for children and

adolescents: informing development of a conceptual model of health throughout sport.

The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(1), 98.

Elias, N. (1971). The genesis of sport as a sociological problem. In E. Dunning (Ed.), The

sociology of sport: Selected readings. Frank Cass.

Elias, N. & Dunning, E. (1986). Quest for excitement: Sport and leisure in the civilizing

process. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

English, D. J., Graham, J. C., Litrownik, A. J., Everson, M., & Bangdiwala, S. I. (2005).

Defining maltreatment chronicity: Are there differences in child outcomes? Child Abuse

and Neglect, 29, 575–595.

Fasting, K. (2015) Assessing the sociology of sport: on sexual harassment research and policy

International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(4–5), 437–441.

Field, R. (2015). Playing for change: the continuing struggle for sport and recreation.

University of Toronto Press.

Fitzpatrick, S., & Johnson, A. (2018, October 18). Former USA Gymnastics head Steve Penny

https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559504269191



arrested on tampering charges in abuse probe. NBC News.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/former-usa-gymnastics-head-steve-penny-

arrested-tampering-charges-abuse-n921476

Fortier, K., Parent, S., & Lessard, G. (2020). Child maltreatment in sport: Smashing the wall of

silence: A narrative review of physical, sexual, psychological abuses and neglect. British

Journal of Sports Medicine, 54, 4-7.

Founder Members Group. (2014). International safeguards for children in sport.

https://www.sportanddev.org/sites/default/files/downloads/international-safeguards-for-

children-in-sport-version-to-view-online.pdf

Frosdick, S., & Walley, L. (1997). Sport and safety management. Elsevier Butterworth-

Heinemann.

Gaudin, J. (1993). Effective intervention with neglectful families. Criminal Justice and

Behaviour, 20(1), 66-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854893020001006

Gelles, R. J., & Cornell, C. P. (1990). Family studies text series: Intimate violence in families

(2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Gervis, M., & Dunn, N. (2004). The emotional abuse of elite child athletes by their coaches.

Child Abuse Review, 13, 215-223.

Gibson, C., Davenport, S., Fowler, T., Harris, C. B., Prudhomme, M., Whiting, S., & Simmons-

Horton, S. (2019). Understanding the 2017 “me too” movement’s timing. Humanity &

Society, 43(2), 217-224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597619832047

Government of Canada. (2019, May 21). Minister Duncan announces support for sport

organizations to address harassment, abuse, discrimination and maltreatment in sport.

Canadian Heritage. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2019/05/minister-

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/former-usa-gymnastics-head-steve-penny-arrested-tampering-charges-abuse-n921476

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/former-usa-gymnastics-head-steve-penny-arrested-tampering-charges-abuse-n921476

https://www.sportanddev.org/sites/default/files/downloads/international-safeguards-for-children-in-sport-version-to-view-online.pdf

https://www.sportanddev.org/sites/default/files/downloads/international-safeguards-for-children-in-sport-version-to-view-online.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854893020001006

https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597619832047

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2019/05/minister-duncan-announces-support-for-sport-organizations-to-address-harassment-abuse-discrimination-and-maltreatment-in-sport.html


duncan-announces-support-for-sport-organizations-to-address-harassment-abuse-

discrimination-and-maltreatment-in-sport.html

Guskiewicz, K., Teel, E., & McCrea, M. (2014). Concussion: Key stakeholders and multi-

disciplinary participation in making sports safe. Neurosurgery, 75(4), s113-s118.

https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000494

Gymnastics Canada. (2020). Our commitment to safe sport.

http://www.gymcan.org/programs/safe-sport/overview

Hamarman, S., & Bernet, W. (2000). Evaluating and reporting emotional abuse in children:

Parent-based, action-based focus aids in clinical decision-making. Journal of the

American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(7), 928–930.

https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200007000-00023

Hanson, A., Jolly, N. A., & Peterson, J. (2017). Safety regulation in professional football:

Empirical evidence of intended and unintended consequences. Journal of Health

Economics, 53, 87-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2017.01.004

Hargreaves, J. (1994). The inter-war years: Limitations and possibilities. In J. Hargreaves (Ed.),

Sporting females: Critical issues in the history and sociology of women’s sport (pp. 112-

144). Routledge.

Harris, A. J., & Terry, K. J. (2019). Child sexual abuse in organizational settings: A research

framework to advance policy and practice. Sexual Abuse, 3(6), 635-642.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219858144

Hartill, M. (2009). The sexual abuse of boys in organized male-sports. Men and Masculinities

12, 225–249.

Hartill, M. (2013). Concealment of child sexual abuse in sports. Quest, 65(2), 241–254.



https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000494

http://www.gymcan.org/programs/safe-sport/overview

https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200007000-00023

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2017.01.004

https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219858144


Hartill, M., & Lang, M. (2015). Conclusion. In M. Lang & M. Hartill (Eds.), Safeguarding,

Child Protection and Abuse in Sport: International perspectives in research, policy and

practice (pp. 192-202). Routledge.

Hartmann-Tews, I., Bartsch, F., Wagner, I., & Rulofs, B. (2020). Managing prevention of sexual

violence and the role of commissioners in national sport federations in Germany. Sport

Management Review, 23(1), 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.09.006

Harvey, A., & McNamee, M. (2019). Sport integrity: Ethics, policy and practice: An

introduction. Journal of Global Sport Management, 4(1), 1-7.

https://doi.org/10.1080/24704067.2018.1542606

Hayhurst, L., Kay, T., & Chawansky, M. (2016). Beyond sport for development and peace:

Transnational perspectives on theory and practice. Routledge.

Higgs, C., Way, R., Harber, V., Jurbala, P., & Balyi, I. (2019). Long-term development in sport

and physical activity. 3.0. Sport for Life Society. https://sportforlife.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2019/06/Long-Term-Development-in-Sport-and-Physical-Activity-

3.0.pdf

Hill, A. (2013, April 24). A timeline of UFC rules: From no-holds-barred to highly regulated.

Bleacher Report. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1614213-a-timeline-of-ufc-rules-

from-no-holds-barred-to-highly-regulated

Hill, D. (2013). The insider’s guide to match-fixing in football. Anne McDermid &

Associates

Hornor, G. (2011). Emotional maltreatment. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 26(6), 436-442.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2011.05.004

Hughes, R., & Coakley, J. (1991). Positive deviance among athletes: The implications of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.09.006

https://doi.org/10.1080/24704067.2018.1542606

https://sportforlife.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Long-Term-Development-in-Sport-and-Physical-Activity-3.0.pdf



https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1614213-a-timeline-of-ufc-rules-from-no-holds-barred-to-highly-regulated

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1614213-a-timeline-of-ufc-rules-from-no-holds-barred-to-highly-regulated

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2011.05.004


overconformity to the sport ethic. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8(4), 307-325.

https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.8.4.307

Hunt, L. (2007). Inventing Human Rights: A History. W.W. Norton.

International Olympic Committee. (1997). Olympic charter. Lausanne: IOC Sport for All

Commission.

International Olympic Committee. (2017). Safeguarding athletes from harassment in sport and

abuse in sport: IOC toolkit for IFs and NOCs. IOC. https://www.iwf.net/wp-

content/uploads/downloads/2018/10/IOC_Safeguarding_Toolkit_ENG.pdf

International Olympic Committee. (2020, September 9). IOC initiates international

safeguarding officer in sport certificate. IOC. https://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-

initiates-international-safeguarding-officer-in-sport-certificate

Jacobs, F., Smits, F., & Knoppers, A. (2016). ‘You don’t realize what you see!’: The

institutional context of emotional abuse in elite youth sport. Sport in Society,

20(1), 126–143.

Jaffee, S. R., & Maikovich-Fong, A. K. (2011). Effects of chronic maltreatment and

maltreatment timing on children’s behavior and cognitive abilities. The Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(2), 184-194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-

7610.2010.02304.x

Jensen, A. R., Maciel, R. C., Petrigliano, F. A., Rodriguez, J. P., & Brooks, A. G. (2016).

Injuries sustained by the mixed martial arts athlete. Sport Health: A Multidisciplinary

Approach, 9(1), 64-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738116664860

Jowett, S., & Carpenter, P. (2015). The concept of rules in the coach-athlete relationship. Sports

Coaching Review, 4(1), 1-23.

https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.8.4.307

https://www.iwf.net/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2018/10/IOC_Safeguarding_Toolkit_ENG.pdf


https://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-initiates-international-safeguarding-officer-in-sport-certificate

https://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-initiates-international-safeguarding-officer-in-sport-certificate

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02304.x

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02304.x

https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738116664860


Karpman, S., Reid, P., Phillips, L., Qin, Z., & Gross, D. P. (2016). Combative sports injuries: An

Edmonton retrospective. Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine, 26(4), 332-334.

Kelly, E. M. (2013). The Jerry Sandusky effect: Child abuse reporting laws should no longer be

“don't ask, don’t tell.” University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 75(2), 209-233.

https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2013.305

Kennedy, S., & Grainger, J. (2006). Why I didn’t say anything: The Sheldon Kennedy story.

Insomniac Press.

Kerr, G., Battaglia A., & Stirling, A. (2019a). Maltreatment in youth sport: A systemic issue.

Kinesiology Review, 8, 237-243. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2019-0016

Kerr, R., & Kerr, G. (2020). Promoting athlete welfare: A proposal for an international

surveillance system. Sport Management Review, 23(1), 95-103.


Kerr, G., Kidd, B., & Donnelly, P. (2020a). One step forward, two steps back: The struggle for

child protection in Canadian sport. Social Sciences, 9(5), 68-83.

https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9050068

Kerr, G., Kidd, B., & Donnelly, P. (2020b). Advancing Safe Sport in Canada: A Statement on

'Independence' -- What it means and what it should look like in practice. Centre for Sport

Policy Studies Position Paper. Centre for Sport Policy Studies, Faculty of Kinesiology

and Physical Education, University of Toronto.

Kerr, G. A., & Stirling, A. E. (2012). Parents’ reflections on their child’s experiences of

emotionally abusive coaching practices. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 24, 191-

206.

Kerr, G. & Stirling, A. (2014). Applying Ecological Systems Theory to the issue of athlete abuse

https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2013.305

https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2019-0016




in sport. In R. J. Schinke & K. McGannon (Eds.). The psychology of sub-culture in sport

and physical activity: A critical approach (pp. 17-30). Psychology Press.

Kerr, G., Stirling, A., & Bandealy, A. (2016a). Film depictions of emotionally abusive coach-

athlete interactions. Sports Coaching Review, 5(1), 87-101.

Kerr, G., Stirling, A., & MacPherson, E. (2014). A critical examination of child protection

initiatives in sport contexts. Social Sciences, 3(4), 742–757.

Kerr, G., Stirling, A., MacPherson, E., Banwell, J., Bandealy, A., & Preston, C. (2016b).

Exploring the use of exercise as punishment in sport. International Journal of Coaching

Science, 10(2), 35-53.

Kerr, G., Willson, E., & Stirling, A. (2019b). Prevalence of maltreatment among current and

former national team athletes. AthletesCAN.

https://athletescan.com/sites/default/files/images/prevalence_of_maltreatment_reporteng.

pdf

Kidd, B. (1996). The struggle for Canadian sport. University of Toronto Press.

Kidd, B., & Donnelly, P. (2000). Human rights in sport. International Review for the Sociology

of Sport, 35(2), 131-148.

Kidd, B., & Eberts, M. (1982). Athletes’ rights in Canada. Ontario Ministry of Tourism and

Recreation.

Kirby, S., Greaves, L., & Hankivsky, O. (2000). The dome of silence: Sexual harassment and

abuse in sport. Fernwood Publishing.

Kjønniksen, L., Anderssen, N., & Wold, B. (2009). Organized youth sport as a predictor of

physical activity in adulthood. Scandinavian Journal of Medical Science in Sports, 19,

646-654.

https://athletescan.com/sites/default/files/images/prevalence_of_maltreatment_reporteng.pdf



Knapik, J. J., Marshall, S. W., Lee, R. B., Darakjy, S. S., Jones, S. B., Mitchener, T. A., dela

Cruz, G. G., & Jones, B. H. (2007). Mouthguards in sport activities: History, physical

properties and injury prevention effectiveness. Sports Medicine, 37(2), 28.

Koller, D. L. (2018). A twenty-first century Olympic and amateur sports act. Vanderbilt Journal

of Entertainment and Technology Law, 20(4), 1027-1072.

Kretchmar, S. (2013). Bench players: Do coaches have a moral obligation to play

benchwarmers? In R. L. Simon (Ed.), The Ethics of Coaching Sports: Moral, Social and

Legal Issues (pp. 121-136). Westview Press.

Lang, M., & Hartill, M. (2015). Safeguarding and child protection in sport in England. In M.

Lang & M. Hartill (Eds.), Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in Sport:

International perspectives in research, policy and practice (pp. 13-22). Routledge.

Lee, B., & McGill, S. M. (2014). Striking dynamics and kinetic properties of boxing and MMA

gloves. Revista de artes marciales asiáticas, 9(2), 106-115.

https://doi.org/10.18002/rama.v9i2.1175

Lee, B. H. (2018). #Me too movement; it is time that we all act and participate in transformation.

Psychiatry investigation, 15(5), 433. https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2018.04.30

Leeb, R. T., Paulozzi, L., Melanson, C., Simon, T., & Arias, I. (2008). Child maltreatment

surveillance: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/CM_Surveillance-a.pdf

Lin, A. C., Lin, C., Wang, T., & Leu, J. (2005). Rhabdomyolysis in 119 students

after repetitive exercise. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39(1), 3.

Macfie, J., Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (2001). The development of dissociation in maltreated

https://doi.org/10.18002/rama.v9i2.1175

https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2018.04.30

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/CM_Surveillance-a.pdf


preschool-aged children. Development and Psychopathology, 13(2), 233-254.

https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579401002036

Martin, M. P., & Klaus, S. L. (1978). 1978 annual review of child abuse and neglect research.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Mash, E., & Wolfe, D. (2014). Abnormal child psychology (6th ed.). Wadsworth/Thomson

Learning.

Masters, J., & Veselinovic, M. (2018, February 20). Barry Bennell: 31 years in jail for soccer’s

‘devil incarnate.’ CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/sport/barry-bennell-sexual-

abuse-sentenced-intl/index.html

Miller, P. S., & Kerr, G. A. (2002). Conceptualizing excellence: Past, present, and future.

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(3), 140-153.

Miller-Perrin, C., & Perrin, R. (2013). Child maltreatment: An introduction. Sage.

Mori, K., Rhind, D. J. A., & Gervis, M. (2015). The present state of abuse or corporal

punishment involving children and sports authority figures: The necessity for

a child protection system in sports in Japan. Annals of Fitness and Sports Science,

50, 17–24.

Morris, S. (2019, June 12). Bob Higgins jailed for 24 years for abusing young footballers. The

Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/12/bob-higgins-jailed-for-24-

years-for-abusing-young-footballers

Moscowitz, L. M., Billings, A. C., Ejaz, K., & O’Boyle, J. (2019). Outside the sports closet: New

discourses of professional gay male athletes in the mainstream. Journal of

Communication Inquiry, 43(3), 249-271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859918808333

Moskovitz, D. (2018, July 24). SafeSport, The USOC's attempt to stop child abuse, is set up

https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579401002036

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/sport/barry-bennell-sexual-abuse-sentenced-intl/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/sport/barry-bennell-sexual-abuse-sentenced-intl/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/12/bob-higgins-jailed-for-24-years-for-abusing-young-footballers

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/12/bob-higgins-jailed-for-24-years-for-abusing-young-footballers

https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859918808333


to fail – just like it was supposed to. Deadspin. https://deadspin.com/safesport-the-usocs-

attempt-to-stop-child-abuse-is-se-1826279217/

Mountjoy, M. (2018). ‘Only by speaking out can we create lasting change:’ What can we learn

from the Dr. Larry Nassar tragedy? British Journal of Sports Medicine, 53(1), 57-60.

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, 1019-1029.

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

Mountjoy, M., Rhind, D. J. A., Tiivas, A., & Leglise, M. (2015). Safeguarding the child athlete

in sport: A review, a framework and recommendations for the IOC youth athlete

development model. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(13), 883-886.


Mountjoy, M., Vertommen, T., Burrows, K., & Greinig, S. (2020). #Safesport: Safeguarding

initiatives at the youth Olympic games 2018. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 54(3),

176-182. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2019-101461

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). (2019. February 19).

Safeguarding and child protection policy. NSPCC.

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/volunteering/essential-resources-for-

volunteers/safeguarding-and-child-protection-policy.pdf

Oliver, J. L., & Lloyd, R. S. (2015). Physical training as a potential form of abuse. In M. Lang &

M. Hartill (Eds.), Safeguarding, child protection and abuse in sport: International

perspectives in research, policy and practice (pp. 163–171). Routledge.

https://deadspin.com/safesport-the-usocs-attempt-to-stop-child-abuse-is-se-1826279217/





https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/volunteering/essential-resources-for-volunteers/safeguarding-and-child-protection-policy.pdf

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/volunteering/essential-resources-for-volunteers/safeguarding-and-child-protection-policy.pdf


Palmer, D., & Feldman, V. (2017). Toward a more comprehensive analysis of the role of

organizational culture in child sexual abuse in institutional contexts. Child Abuse &

Neglect, 74, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.08.004

Parent, S., & Fortier, K. (2017). Prevalence of interpersonal violence against athletes in the sport

context. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 165-169.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.05.012

Parent, S., & Fortier, K. (2018). Comprehensive overview of the problem of violence against

athletes in sport. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 42(4), 227-246.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723518759448

Parent, S., & Vaillancourt-Morel, M. (2020). Magnitude and risk factors for interpersonal

violence experienced by Canadian teenagers in the sport context. Journal of Sport and

Social Issues, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723520973571

Park, R. J. (2012). Contesting the norm: Women and professional sports in late nineteenth-

century America. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 29(5), 730-749.

Pells, E. (2018, December 10). U.S. Olympic Committee fires official over his silence in Larry

Nassar case. PBS News Hour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-olympic-

committee-fires-official-over-his-silence-in-larry-nassar-case

Percy, D. F. (2019). A comparison of Olympic and Paralympic performances. Journal of the

Operational Research Society, 70(3), 446-458.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2018.1447246

Pike, E. C. J. (2015). Assessing the sociology of sport: On age and ability. International Review

for the Sociology of Sport, 50(4-5), 570-574.

Porter, M. R., Antonishak, J., & Reppucci, N. D. (2006). Policy and applied definitions


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.05.012

https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723518759448

https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723520973571

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-olympic-committee-fires-official-over-his-silence-in-larry-nassar-case

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-olympic-committee-fires-official-over-his-silence-in-larry-nassar-case

https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2018.1447246


of child maltreatment. In M. Feerick, J. Knutson, P. Trickett, S. Flanzer, & K. Snow

(Eds.), Child abuse and neglect: Definitions, classifications, and a framework

for research (pp. 331–341). Brooks Publishing.

Potter, M. R., Snyder, A. J., & Smith, G. A. (2011). Boxing injuries presenting to U.S.

emergency departments, 1990-2008. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(4),

462-467.

Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017, Public

Law 115-126, 36 U.S.C. §§101-102 (2018).

https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ126/PLAW-115publ126.pdf

Rhind, D., McDermott, J., Lambert, E., & Koleva, I. (2015). A review of safeguarding cases in

sport. Child Abuse Review, 24(6), 418-426.

Rhind, D., & Owusu-Sekyere, F. (2018). International safeguards for children in sport:

Developing and embedding a safeguarding culture. Routledge.

Rich, K. A., & Giles, A. R. (2015). Managing diversity to provide culturally safe sport

programming: A case study of the Canadian red cross’s swim program. Journal of Sport

Management, 29(3), 305-317.

Richardson, K., Rosenthal, M., & Burak, L. (2012). Exercise as punishment: An application of

the theory of planned behaviour. American Journal of Health Education, 43(6), 356-365.

Rühlemann, A., Mayer, C., Goette, L., Behringer, M., & Jäger, M. (2019). Functional knee

stability in handball: An indispensable criterion for safe sport. Sportverletzung,

Sportschaden, 33(2), 87-95.

Rulofs, B. (2015). Child protection in German sport. In M. Lang & M. Hartill (Eds.),



Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in Sport: International perspectives in

research, policy and practice (pp. 49-57). Routledge.

Safe Sport Africa. (2020). Safeguarding in sport in Africa. https://www.safesportafrica.org/

Safe Sport International. (2019). Safe sport international principles.

http://www.safesportinternational.com/principles/

Shaffer, A., Yates, T. M., & Egeland, B. R. (2009). The relation of emotional maltreatment

to early adolescent competence: Developmental processes in a prospective

study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 33(1), 36–44.

Sheard, K. (2004). Boxing in the western civilizing process. In E. Dunning, D. Malcolm, & I.

Waddington (Eds.), Sport Histories: Figurational studies of the development of modern

sports (pp. 15-30). Routledge.

Singh, P. (2006) The protection of children in sport. Cape Town: Department of Sport and

Recreation South Africa.

Skillen, F. (2012). ‘Woman and the sport fetish’: Modernity, consumerism and sports

participation in inter-war Britain. The International Journal of the History of Sport,

29(5), 750-765.

Smith, A. (2015). Safeguarding the welfare of disabled people in sport: Some policy issues and

considerations. In M. Lang & M. Hartill (Eds.), Safeguarding, Child Protection and

Abuse in Sport: International perspectives in research, policy and practice (pp. 153-162).

Routledge.

Smith, A., & Haycock, D. (2011). Sport development and disability. In B. Houlihan &

M. Green (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Sports Development (pp. 87-99). Routledge.

Smith, L. R., & Pegoraro, A. (2020). Media framing of Larry Nassar and the USA gymnastics

https://www.safesportafrica.org/



child sex abuse scandal. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 29(4), 373-392.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2019.1703233

Spertus, I. L., Yehuda, R., Wong, C. M., Halligan, S., & Seremetis, S. V. (2003). Childhood

emotional abuse and neglect as predictors of psychological and physical symptoms in

women presenting to a primary care practice. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(11), 1247-1258.


Sport Singapore. (2020). Safe sport.

https://www.sportsingapore.gov.sg/athletes-coaches/safesport

Solstad, G. M., & Strandbu, A. (2019). Culturally framing ‘safe sport’: On political mobilisation

against abuse in Zambian sport. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 11(4),

625-637.

Staurowsky, E., & Weight, E. A. (2013). Discovering dysfunction in Title IX implementation:

NCAA administrator literacy, responsibility, and fear. Journal of Applied Sport

Management, 5(1), 1-30.

Stewart, A., Livingston, M., & Dennison, S. (2008). Transitions and turning points: Examining

the links between child maltreatment and juvenile offending. Child Abuse and Neglect,

32, 66.

Stirling, A. E. (2009). Definition and constituents of maltreatment in sport: establishing a

conceptual framework for research practitioners. British Journal of Sports Medicine,

43(14), 1091–1099.

Stirling, A. E. (2013). Understanding the use of emotionally abusive coaching practices.

International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 8(4), 625-639.

https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.8.4.625

https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2019.1703233


https://www.sportsingapore.gov.sg/athletes-coaches/safe-%20sport

https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.8.4.625


Stirling, A. E., & Kerr, G. A. (2008). Defining and categorizing emotional abuse in sport.

European Journal of Sport Science, 8, 173–181.

Stirling, A. E., & Kerr, G. A. (2013). The perceived effects of elite athletes’ experiences of

emotional abuse in the coach-athlete relationship. International Journal of Sport and

Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 87–100.

Stirling, A., & Kerr, G. (2014). Initiating and sustaining emotional abuse in the coach-athlete

relationship: An ecological transactional model of vulnerability. Journal of Aggression,

Maltreatment and Trauma, 23(2), 116-135.

Stride, C., Thomas, F., & Smith, M. M. (2014). Ballplayer or barrier breaker? Branding through

the seven statues of Jackie Robinson. The International Journal of the History of Sport,

31(17), 2164-2196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2014.923840

Swimming Canada. (2020). Swimming Canada safe sport overview.

https://www.swimming.ca/en/safe-sport/

Taliaferro, L. A., Rienzo, B. A., & Donovan, K. A. (2010). Relationships between youth sport

participation and selected health risk behaviors from 1999 to 2007. The Journal of School

Health, 80(8), 399-410.

Teetzel, S. (2014). The onus of inclusivity: Sport policies and the enforcement of the women’s

category in sport. Journal of Philosophy of Sport, 41(1), 113-127.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2013.858394

Tennis Canada. (2020). Safe sport: Creating a safe and healthy environment.

https://www.tenniscanada.com/safe-sport/

The United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Treaty Series, 1577, 3.

Toftegaard-Støckel, J. (2015). Safeguarding children and young people in Danish sport. In M.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2014.923840

https://www.swimming.ca/en/safe-sport/

https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2013.858394

https://www.tenniscanada.com/safe-sport/


Lang & M. Hartill (Eds.), Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in Sport:

International perspectives in research, policy and practice (pp. 23-30). Routledge.

Tschan, W. (2013). Professional misconduct in institutions: Cases and consequences, prevention

and intervention. Hogrefe Publishing.

United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2012, February 14). SAFESPORT. Trademark

Status & Document Retrieval.

https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85475739&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=st

atusSearch

Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport. (2019).

https://sirc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/UCCMS-v5.1-FINAL-Eng.pdf

US Center for SafeSport. (2018). US center for safesport. https://uscenterforsafesport.org/

Van Niekerk, R. L. (2015). Protecting children from abuse an exploitation in South African

sports. In M. Lang & M. Hartill (Eds.), Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in

Sport: International perspectives in research, policy and practice (pp. 88-96). Routledge.

Vertommen, T., Schipper-van Veldhoven, N., Wouters, K., Kampen, J. K., Brackenridge, C. H.,

Rhind, D. J. A., Neels, K., & Van Den Eede, F. (2016). Interpersonal violence against

children in sport in the Netherlands and Belgium. Child Abuse and Neglect, 51, 223-236.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.10.006

Vertommen, T., Tolleneer, J., Maebe, G., & De Martelaer, K. (2015). Preventing child

maltreatment and transgressive behaviour in Flemish sport. In M. Lang & M. Hartill

(Eds.), Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in Sport: International perspectives in


Wachtel, A. (1994). Child abuse and neglect: A discussion paper and overview of topically

https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85475739&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch


https://sirc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/UCCMS-v5.1-FINAL-Eng.pdf

https://uscenterforsafesport.org/



related projects. The Circle.

Wicklund, A., Foster, S. D., & Roy, A. A. (2018). Getting back on the horse: Sport-specific

return to play in rodeo athletes after concussion injury. Journal of Athletic Training,

53(7), 657-661. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-310-17

Women in the World. (2019, January). Larry Nassar’s first known victim was 8 years old.

Now she’s offering support to his younger victims. Women in the World.

https://womenintheworld.com/2019/01/18/larry-nassars-first-known-victim-was-8-years-

old-now-shes-39-and-offering-support-to-his-younger-victims/

World Health Organization. (2020). Child maltreatment.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/child-maltreatment

Young, K. (2012). Sport, violence and society. Routledge.

Zahner, L., Muehlbauer, T., Schmid, M., Meyer, U., Puder, J. J., & Kriemler, S. (2009).

Associations of sports club participation with fitness and fatness in children. Medicine

and Science in Sports and Exercise, 41(2), 344-350.

https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-310-17

https://womenintheworld.com/2019/01/18/larry-nassars-first-known-victim-was-8-years-old-now-shes-39-and-offering-support-to-his-younger-victims/

https://womenintheworld.com/2019/01/18/larry-nassars-first-known-victim-was-8-years-old-now-shes-39-and-offering-support-to-his-younger-victims/


96

CHAPTER THREE: STUDY 1

Reconceptualizing Safe Sport: From Prevention of Harm to Promotion of Athlete Rights


Abstract

The construct “Safe Sport” has permeated the sport world and is commonly understood to

describe sport that is free of abuse, bullying, harassment, and sometimes, injuries, concussions,

and discrimination. In response to numerous high-profile cases of harm experienced by athletes,

sport organizations have endeavoured to develop safe sport policies, educational programmes,

and complaint processes. However, despite the proliferation of this term, confusion exists about

what it does and does not encompass and without a consistent conceptual framework, the

effectiveness of interventions to prevent and address harms in sport will be hindered. In this

study, we sought to develop a conceptual framework of safe sport by exploring the perspectives

of various groups of participants in sport. Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, semi-

structured interviews were conducted with forty-three participants, including researchers,

athletes, coaches, and sport administrators, with the purpose of eliciting views of the meaning of

the term safe sport and the foundational characteristics that define this term. The findings

indicated that commonalities existed across all participants, specifically regarding the prevention

of and intervention in incidences of physical, psychological, and sexual harm. However, some

participants extended their interpretation of safe sport to include the optimisation of the sport

experience. Stemming from the findings, we propose a conceptual framework for safe sport that

includes safety or the prevention of harm but extends to safeguarding or the promotion of

inclusive, accessible, and rights-based sport for all.

Keywords: safe sport; safeguarding sport; rights-based sport; grounded theory


Introduction

The concept of safe sport has become part of the common vernacular of sport

stakeholders engaged in conversations about safety, emerging from the disturbing stories

internationally about abuses suffered by athletes. Many organizations, such as Safe Sport

International (2019), the US Center for SafeSport (2020), the International Olympic Committee

(2020), and the Coaching Association of Canada (2020) to name a few, refer to this notion of

safe sport, and have designed initiatives to advance safe sport through the implementation of

policies, education, or advocacy. Most organizations that articulate a goal of safe sport promote

it as a concept that addresses the awareness and prevention of, and intervention in, incidences of

abuse and harassment or maltreatment in sport (Kerr & Kerr, 2020; Kerr, Kidd, & Donnelly,

2020). Maltreatment has been defined by the World Health Organization (2020) as:

All types of physical and/or emotional ill-treatment, sexual abuse, neglect, negligence

and commercial or other exploitation, which results in actual or potential harm to the

child’s health, survival, development or dignity in the context of a relationship of

responsibility, trust or power. (para. 1)

Recently, academic articles have emerged to reference the safe sport movement as well (Harris

& Terry, 2019; Kerr & Kerr, 2020; Kerr et al., 2020; Mountjoy, Vertommen, Burrows, &

Greinig, 2020; Novkov, 2019). To-date, the primary focus of research and sport organizations’

safe sport programmes has been on the prevention of sexual abuse despite the evidence

indicating that other forms of abuse are far more common in sport (Alexander, Stafford, &

Lewis, 2011; Vertommen, Schipper-van Veldhoven, Hartill, & Van Den Eede, 2015).

Despite the proliferation of the term safe sport, definitional consensus remains elusive.

Scholarly articles acknowledge the prevention of maltreatment as the dominant discourse of safe


sport, but alternative conceptualizations exist as well, mainly framed by a medical lens and

focused on physical safety-related issues in sport, such as concussion (Guskiewicz, Teel, &

McCrea, 2014) or injury prevention (Diamond, Dickinson, Fiscus, Heitmann, & Radman, 2019).

Safety has been described as “a state obtained because of properly organized defense and

protection against threats, mainly using forces and resources from various fields related to human

activity” (Kazimierski, 2019, p. 302). The prevention of harm and unnecessary risk has become a

growing focus in multiple fields, such as healthcare (Gampetro, Segvich, Jordan, Velsor-

Friedrich, & Burkhart, 2019), construction (Biggs, Banks, Davey, & Freeman, 2013), and

education (Yablon & Addington, 2018), to name a few. Conversations pertaining to safety in

sport have also become increasingly prevalent, a trend we purport is attributable to heightened

attention to concussions and mild traumatic brain injury. For example, there has been a reported

increase in youth athletes’ participation in contact and collision sports; consequently, there is a

growing concern of susceptibility to sport-related concussions and attention to the absence of

protective athletic equipment that entirely prevents traumatic brain injuries (Guskiewicz et al.,

2014). As such, recommendations are made for proper skill development, educating coaches on

player safety, encouraging coaches to promote safe sportsperson behaviour while discouraging

dangerous play, and the enhancement of return to play polices and regulations to safeguard

athletes from head injuries (Guskiewicz et al., 2014; Nalepa, Alexander, Schodrof, Bernick, &

Pardini, 2017). Diamond and colleagues (2019) also examined safety in youth sport, with a broad

focus on injury prevention; coaches’ lack of exposure to health and safety-related competencies,

such as principles of injury prevention, basic first aid, concussion management, and

cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), increases athletes’ exposure to unnecessary risk.


The dominant paradigm of safety in sport held by many sport organizations is on the

prevention of abuse. In 2004, the International Olympic Committee developed programmes to

protect athletes from abuse and harassment in sport (2020). In 2012, the United States Olympic

and Paralympic Committee (USOC) trademarked the term “SAFESPORT” (Moskovitz, 2018)

which provided early interpretations of what the term represented, based upon the proposed

goods and services being offered:

Promoting public awareness of the need to prevent the maltreatment of athletes in

organized sport; Educational services, namely, conducting classes, seminars,

presentations and workshops, in the field of preventing the maltreatment of athletes in

organized sport, and the distribution of course materials in connection therewith;

Developing voluntary standards, policies and procedures for athletic training, coaching,

and mentoring and sports participation and competition organization to prevent the

maltreatment of athletes in organized sport (United States Patent and Trademark Office,

2012).

To advance this stance of safe sport, the United States Congress enacted the Protecting Young

Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017, which was implemented in

2018 “To prevent the sexual abuse of minors and amateur athletes by requiring the prompt

reporting of sexual abuse to law enforcement authorities, and for other purposes” (Protecting

Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017, 2018). The

legislation sanctioned the United States Center for SafeSport to serve as the independent national

safe sport organization, authorized “to promote a safe environment in sports that is free from

abuse, including emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, of any amateur athlete” (Protecting

Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017, 2018, p. 320).


Interestingly, experiences of neglect, another type of maltreatment, is not mentioned in the act

despite being recognized as a common occurrence in sport (Kerr, Willson, & Stirling, 2019).

In a study conducted by Mountjoy and colleagues (2020), athletes competing in the 2018

Youth Olympic Games (YOG) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, were asked to participate in an online

survey inquiring about their understanding of safe sport. Of the respondents, 21.8% perceived

safe sport as being associated with some version of safety; specifically, 152 responses focused on

general safety (i.e., the precautions taken to facilitate a safe experience) and 65 responses

attributed safe sport to being free from harm. Under the general theme of safety, responses also

addressed personal feelings of safety (i.e., safely participating in sport), participation in a safe

environment, and the use of safety equipment (e.g., a life jacket or helmet). In comparison, only

9.5% of responses described safe sport as sport free from harassment and/or abuse. Interestingly,

findings from this study yielded many other interpretations of safe sport, such as: fair play (e.g.,

following the rules of sport or participating in clean sport), sportsmanship (e.g., respect, ethics,

equality), health and wellness (e.g., injury free sport), supportive environment (e.g., quality

training, teamwork), free from negative feelings, such as fear and worry, and positive

association, which was the overall positive connotation individuals associate with safe sport.

Mountjoy and colleagues (2020) concluded that the participants’ conceptualization of safe sport

focused primarily on topics of health, integrity, and antidoping in sport and that the athletes were

unfamiliar with the ways in which harassment and abuse manifest in sport. Ironically, athletes

seemed unaware of the use of the term safe sport to refer to abuse-free sport (Mountjoy et al.,

2020), despite this movement being developed primarily to protect athletes from abuse.

Despite the proliferation of the term, safe sport, confusion exists about what safe sport

does and does not encompass. Definitions provided by sport organizations vary in their inclusion


of some or all of the following: drug-free sport, concussions and return to play guidelines, sport

injuries, safe physical environments, various forms of abuse and harassment, protective

equipment, fair play, and supportive environments. As such, the following study sought to

understand how various participants of sport, including athletes, coaches, sport administrators,

and researchers, conceptualize safe sport. As the protection of athletes from physical,

psychological, and social harm is a systemic issue requiring the efforts of all of those involved in

sport (Kerr, Battaglia, & Stirling, 2019), it is important to explore the perspectives of diverse

participants groups who are affected by and responsible for safe sport.

The purpose of this investigation therefore was to assess participants’ conceptualizations

of safe sport. The research aims were to explore various participants’ interpretations of the term,

safe sport, and to use these interpretations to develop a conceptual framework for safe sport.

These aims are important because clarity, definitional consensus, and a conceptual framework

are important for informing the development of prevention and intervention initiatives.

Methodology and Methods

Paradigmatic Position

The following study is situated within a constructivist paradigm, which maintains that our

perceptions of reality are culturally and socially influenced by our personal interactions with

society and the environment (Campbell, 2002; Kukla, 2000). This paradigm was adopted to

further understand how stakeholders in sport conceptualize safe sport, recognizing that this

conceptualization is informed through a codependent process facilitated by the negotiation of

various topics between stakeholders of sport and the principal investigator. A constructivist

paradigm upholds a relativist ontology, which accepts the notion that several realities may exist

as “mental constructions” that are experientially and socially constructed (Guba & Lincoln,


1994, p. 110); in this case, a relativist ontology suggests that stakeholders’ conceptualization of a

safe sport environment is formulated through negotiated interactions with other stakeholders, the

researcher, and the environment in which they are immersed. Moreover, it is assumed that

stakeholders who identify similarly (e.g., culturally, sexually, etc.) may formulate unique

constructions of safe sport influenced by the distinct social conditions acting upon them.

Constructivism embraces a transactional, subjectivist epistemology (Daly, 2007). Participants

and the investigator “are assumed to be interactively linked so that the ‘findings’ are literally

created as the investigation proceeds” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 111). The epistemological

assumptions of this study consider that stakeholders’ conceptualization of safe sport may stem

from prior experiential and social constructions of safety formed through sport-related

interactions. Moreover, participants’ understanding of safe sport are assumed to be flexible

insofar that interpretations are be negotiated through interactions with the researcher.

Methodology

The following study is methodologically positioned as a constructivist grounded theory

method (CGTM). Grounded theory methodology is understood as an inductive and iterative

process of collecting and analysing data for the purpose of developing theory (Bryant &

Charmaz, 2007). Belgrave and Seide (2019) acknowledged CGTM as an interpretive approach of

grounded theory that “recognize[s] the existence of multiple realities, treat[s] data as mutually

constructed between themselves and participants, and see[s] their analyses as constructions of

reality” (p. 301). According to Charmaz (2006), CGTM “places priority on the phenomena of

study and sees both data and analysis as created from shared experiences and relationships with

participants and other sources of data” (p. 130). The interpretive nature of CGTM enables the

researcher(s) to be flexible, creative, and reflexive when theorizing data (Charmaz, 2006).


Methods

Participants

The following study sought to understand how various stakeholders of sport

conceptualize the notion of safe sport. Forty-three participants were recruited for this study,

including sixteen high-performance athletes, nine interuniversity coaches, thirteen sport

administrators, and five researchers. To understand safe sport, we must inquire about the

perspectives held by multiple participant groups who are affected by or responsible for safety in

sport; exploring diverse perspectives from main participants in sport can inform the development

of a consistent and comprehensive conceptual framework. Athletes at the high-performance level

were recruited to participate in this study because according to Gervis and Dunn (2004), harmful

and unsafe practices are more prevalent in high-performance sport; thus, it was assumed that

athletes with exposure to this level of sport will have greater insights pertaining to un/safe

practices. It is also critical to inquire about the perspectives of retired athletes, given that they

have the benefit of distance from their experiences for reflection and reportedly experience

negative health outcomes during retirement from the unsafe experiences they endured as active

participants in sport (Stirling & Kerr, 2007; 2009). Coaches are important to include as they play

critical roles in providing safe environments and promoting values of safety in sport (Guskiewicz

et al., 2014) and are reportedly often perpetrators of harm (Kerr et al., 2019). Sport

administrators are also key stakeholders given their responsibility for advancing safe standards

through the establishment of policies and procedures, risk management, training and education of

staff, and the organizational culture. Finally, we believed that those researchers who study safe

sport would provide unique perspectives on the research question.


Athletes. All sixteen athletes identified as being Canadian, including eight who identified

as female and eight who identified as male. Seven of the athletes were retired from sport, with

the remaining nine participants still actively competing. Of the retired sample, four athletes

identified as former interuniversity athletes and the remaining three retirees identified as an

Olympian, a professional hockey player, and a semi-professional kayaker. Of the total sample,

three athletes identified as Black, one athlete identified as Asian, and one athlete identified as

Middle Eastern. There was one female Paralympic athlete, who competed in the 2016 Rio

Olympics and two male athletes who identified as gay. A diversity of sports was represented,

including swimming, basketball, ice hockey, baseball, water polo, (American) football, rugby,

kayak, and athletics.

Coaches. There were five head coaches and four assistant coaches who participated in

this study, including four who identified as male and the remaining five who identified as

female. One coach identified as Black, one coach identified as Indian, and two coaches identified

as Asian. All coaches were affiliated with interuniversity sport in Canada and represented the

following sports: volleyball, field hockey, swimming, lacrosse, badminton, soccer, and

basketball.

Administrators. Seven female and six male administrators were recruited for this study.

All participants held high positions in their respective organization, such as “Director” or “Chief

Executive Officer.” Eleven administrators worked for Canadian organizations and two

administrators worked internationally. All the participants identified as Caucasian.

Researchers. There were three female researchers and two male researchers. Four of the

researchers were recruited from Canadian universities and one researcher was recruited from a


university in the United States. All researchers identified as Caucasian, and one researcher

identified with the LGBTQ community.

Confidentiality of Participants. All participants were assigned a pseudonym to ensure

confidentiality was maintained. Athletes are referred to by the letter “A”, coaches by the letter

“C”, administrators by the letters “AD”, and researchers by the letter “R”, followed by a

numerical value such as, A1, C1, AD1, R1. All personal identifiable information has been

eliminated from the transcripts to ensure confidentiality is further sustained.

Measures

Data Collection. The following study relied on in-depth semi-structured interviews as a

method of data collection. Semi-structured interviews “are…organized around a set of

predetermined open-ended questions, with other questions emerging from the dialogue between

the interviewer and interviewee/s” (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006, p. 315). Charmaz (2006)

justified the use of in-depth interviews to thoroughly explore the meanings participants attach to

their shared experiences. Moreover, the interpretative and dialectical stance of constructivist

grounded theory method encourages the use of methods, such as semi-structured interviews, that

prompt open dialogue. To understand stakeholders’ conceptualizations of safe sport, participants

were asked questions such as: “What does safe sport mean to you?” and “What topics are

included in conversations of safe sport?” All participants participated in an in-person, telephone,

or video conference interview, which ranged between 45 and 120 minutes; interviews were

digitally recorded with the participant’s consent and transcribed verbatim.


Procedures

Recruitment. This study utilized multiple sampling procedures to recruit participants.

Initially, a convenience sampling approach was used to interview participants who were

accessible to the researchers and met the established participant criteria. In the early phases of

recruitment, Morse (2007) suggested participants contribute towards negotiating the scope,

boundaries, and trajectory of the study and research processes. The cyclical nature of CGTM

suggests themes continuously emerge when simultaneously collecting and analyzing data. After

initial data analysis, a purposeful sampling approach was used to recruit participants who

satisfied the established focus of the study (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2014). Finally, developing

theory in grounded theory research is enhanced through a process of theoretical sampling; this

approach focuses on recruiting specific participants who are perceived as being critical for the

elaboration, development, and refinement of emerging theory (Charmaz, 2006). For this project,

all participants were sent a recruitment email requesting participation in the study, noting their

rights to confidentiality and withdrawal from the study at any point without penalty.

Data Analysis. Grounded theory research is described as a “cyclical process of collecting

data, analysing it, developing a provisional coding scheme, using this to suggest further

sampling, more analysis, checking out emerging theory…until a point of ‘saturation’ is reached”

(Green & Thorogood, 2009, p. 203). A CGTM relies on two main phases of coding, initial and

focused, followed by a process of theoretical coding (Charmaz, 2006). Initial coding is described

as a thorough, line-by-line scan of the transcript data (Jones et al., 2014). According to Charmaz

(2006), to label initial codes, researchers should answer the following question: “What are these

data a study of?” and “What do the data suggest?” (p. 47). The next major phase of analysis,

focused coding, permits the researcher to develop “more directed, selective, and conceptual”


codes (Charmaz, 2006, p. 57). This stage allows the researcher to produce and define greater

segments of data by using “the most significant and/or frequent earlier codes to sift through large

amounts of data” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 57). In the final stage, theoretical coding utilizes the

established codes from focused coding to develop theoretically rich and integrative themes

(Jones et al., 2014). The defining of theoretical codes is an integral process that makes the

analysis comprehensible and coherent and contributes towards the defining of new grounded

theory (Charmaz, 2006; Jones et al., 2014).

Throughout the recursive process of gathering and analyzing data, constant comparisons

and memo-writing were important techniques (Jones et al., 2014). Memo-writing was

particularly valuable given its role in assisting the researcher transform data into theory

(Lempert, 2007, p. 245). To facilitate the process of data analysis, researchers may use empirical

resources to ensure the emerging themes and theory are guided by relevant research (Lempert,

2007).

Ethical Considerations. Participants were sent a letter of information and consent form,

which was thoroughly reviewed by the researcher prior to the interview. All participants were

required to provide written consent before participating in the study. A list of mental health and

counselling services was prepared and provided to any participant who experienced distress

when discussing unsafe sport practices or experiences. To ensure confidentiality is preserved,

personal identifying information has been omitted from the transcripts and reported results.

Results

Participants’ Reactions to the term “Safe Sport”

The interviews began with questions about whether the participants were familiar with

the term “safe sport” and assessed what their reactions to the term were. Mixed reactions


resulted, ranging from very comprehensive and confident answers to uncertainty as indicated by

long pauses, fragmented responses, and even resistance. Of those who were unfamiliar with the

term, safe sport, most were athletes and coaches. For example, A2 confessed, “I haven’t heard of

the term safe sport before.” Similarly, C7 stated: “I’m not entirely sure to be honest. I don’t

know if safe sport is directed more to psychological or emotional abuse.” C5 admitted, “I don’t

know if I would have a clear-cut definition…In terms of defining safety, I don’t know if I can do

that for you. I don’t have a definition for you.” C5 assertively pushed back in response to the

question of how they would describe safe sport: “You’re the researcher. You should be telling

me man…Truthfully, I don’t have a huge definition of that word with a prominence in the day to

day thought process and how I am doing my job and what we do.”

Contrastingly, researchers and administrators seemed much more cognizant of the term

safe sport but spoke about the lack of awareness and consensus around the meaning of the term

within the sport community. For example, R2 stated:

I think the term is very unclear…I’ve become aware through my work within the area

and with other scientists I am working with around the world…however, I can say with

confidence that the youth athletes around the world were not well versed in what [safe

sport] meant.

Similarly, AD10 admitted, “as a director of safe sport, it’s my job to know safe sport; know what

it is and know how to achieve it. It becomes difficult when not everyone sees it the way you do.”

Whereas all researchers and most administrators were familiar with some version of the term

safe sport, there were some administrators who expressed confusion about what is and is not

included under the term safe sport, as conveyed by AD8:


I have my own personal views on what I think sport is when I think of safe sport. And

then there’s trying to consolidate the thoughts and ideas of [others]…I don’t think I’ve

fully, in my mind or on paper, defined it fully…I’m still figuring it out.

Participants who were familiar with the term safe sport often elaborated on their

responses to advocate for a universal definition. For example, AD1 referred to the challenges

presented for administrators, who are responsible for implementing safe sport initiatives, because

of the absence of a cohesive framework:

There has to be a common definition and a common standard…not necessarily 30 million

different versions of what safety looks like. We need some boundaries on what we

generally believe is included versus not…I’m all for having a common definition and a

common standard around what level we are expecting to address and in what ways…If

we want to refer to safety within safe sport, then we need to have some sort of

architecture of safe sport and themes that flow within safe sport…We have to have

specific conversations with more clarity on what these themes of safe sport represent.

Similarly, A4 advocated for a universal definition applicable to all participants, regardless of

gender, gender identity or gender expression, “I think there should be a universal definition…It

shouldn’t matter if you are a female or male. There should be a universal definition.” C2 claimed

that safe sport applies to all participants equally and thus, only one definition is required:

All human beings, male or female, have an inherent need to feel safe, protected and feel

like they belong…when it comes to providing that safe sport experience, it is the same for

men and women. It should be the baseline. You should always have to create safe

environments…yes, a universal definition would be ideal. Something that applies to

everyone in or associated with sport.


Conceptualizations of Safe Sport

After being asked about familiarity with and assessing reactions to the term safe sport,

participants were asked to comment on what behaviours or themes fall under the umbrella

concept of safe sport. Even those who were not familiar with the term offered interpretations of

its meaning or made suggestions about what it should encompass. Multiple perspectives were

shared by participants, including: the prevention of physical harm caused by an unsafe

environment, unsafe equipment, injury/concussion prevention, and doping; the prevention of

maltreatment (e.g., physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, harassment); and the

optimisation of the sport experience, characterized by the promotion of inclusive, positive, and

healthy sport experiences as well as the recognition of participation in sport as a fundamental

human right. Finally, a few participants acknowledged the temporality of the concept of safe

sport. Specifically, they referred to the developments of safety in sport across time, recognizing

how current standards of safety in sport differ from past perspectives and will inevitably continue

to evolve over time. Each theme is addressed in the subsequent sections.

Prevention of Physical Harm

Many participants interpreted safe sport as the prevention of physical harm. For some,

harm was understood as the risks and dangers that manifest from participation in a hazardous

sport environment (e.g., inadequate equipment, wet floors, broken glass, etc.); for others,

prevention of physical harm entailed avoidance of performance-enhancing drugs, and the need

for return to play guidelines for concussions.

Regarding the prevention of physical harm by attending to safe environments, C6

explained:


The physical surroundings would be safe, so no cut glass or broken bottles. That’s just

safe living. It would be the pool and deck are clean. You are not necessarily going to be

exposed to some disease. I want to make sure that steam is not coming out of the pool,

that the water isn’t too hot, so the swimmers are not experiencing difficulty training. The

physical environment has to be safe in terms of physical objects…no equipment laying

around.

C4, in describing safe sport, also acknowledged the importance of fostering a safe physical

environment by ensuring proper equipment is being used:

I would take it literally being safe. In my sport, we follow this strict rule. No matter what

gender you are, if you are under the age of 19, you have to wear protective goggles and it

is research based…I have a teammate who lost their eyesight because of it…[athletes]

hate wearing goggles because it fogs up. In a practice, if there are birds on the side when

they are running, we stop the practice. We have rules where they can’t do certain things

because they’ll get hit. That is the first safety thing that we do in our practices.

The prioritization of proper equipment and safe fields of play exemplifies an interpretation of

safe sport as basic safety precautions, which appeared to be at the forefront of many coaches’

definitions or descriptions of safe sport.

Additionally, some participants referred to preventing physical harm through avoidance

of performance enhancing drugs (i.e., doping) and ensuring appropriate return-to-play guidelines

following a head injury or other sport-related injuries as sub-themes of safe sport. AD2

explained:

Doping is one of the biggest threats to the integrity of sport…There are two reasons we

don’t want doping in sport, but it starts with it being unhealthy. It is a health risk to the


athlete that consumes these large amounts of bad substances. That is a health and safety

concern. The athletes who do use them have an advantage over the athletes who don’t.

Those two reasons together explain why we don’t want doping in sport. We don’t want

young kids seeing athletes doping in sport and modelling their behaviour because of

particularly health compromising effects for younger athletes to be engaging in the use of

some of these substances…that’s not safe sport.

Regarding concussions, A5 shared a personal story about concussion, which eventually aided his

understanding of safe sport:

I ended up getting my seventh concussion and the symptoms are brutal. I remember

getting home and trying to recover and I was done. I made a decision to stop

playing…my head was fucked, and I played through enough damage…It [ice hockey]

will never be considered a safe sport. It’s a collision sport. I don’t think anyone should be

punching anyone else without any protection and bare knuckles. There is a lot of damage

to the head…if we’re going to have safe sport, then we have to protect these guys’ heads.

The detrimental effects of playing with multiple concussions convinced A5 that ice hockey

cannot be characterized as safe sport until the sport commits to protecting athletes from head

injuries.

Prevention of Maltreatment

The prevention of maltreatment, including sexual, physical, and psychological abuse,

neglect, bullying and harassment, was another harm-based interpretation suggested by

participants. R2 simply described safe sport as “abuse-free sport” whereas, R1 stated, “safe sport

is protecting athletes from psychological, physical harm and in particular…harassment and

abuse.” According to AD2:


Safe sport has come to mean protection from all forms of sexual, physical, psychological

abuse. That’s how safe sport has come to be defined and understood in our work in the

past few years. I think to a certain extent it’s shared throughout the national sport system.

Other administrators proposed similar definitions, as illustrated by AD10 who defined safe sport

as “any type of maltreatment towards the athlete, towards the coach, towards any participant in

sport…any type of mental abuse, harassment, bullying, discrimination, neglect.”

Participants from other groups advanced similar definitions. C7 claimed that safe sport

ensures:

The athlete is safe from physical violence, their emotional well-being is intact, they have

strong mental health practices, and are aware of abuse. Coaches also avoid using

language or demeanour that is derogatory or harming the athlete from a psychological

perspective.

Similarly, C8 described safe sport as:

A process of making sure the athlete is safe from every type of harm; physical violence,

emotional abuse, derogatory and discriminatory behaviour, any type of sexual violence or

neglect…making sure you don’t overwork them to the point of injury, and just caring for

their mental health by making sure they’re not exposed to anything that would hurt their

self-esteem.

In addition to physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, C8 referenced neglect and mental health

within her conceptualization of safe sport, aspects that were uncommon in the stakeholders’

descriptions.


When describing safe sport, athletes addressed specific behaviours understood to cause

physical and psychological harm. For example, A5, while normalizing the occurrence of physical

injuries in sport, refuted unwarranted acts of maltreatment often perpetrated by coaches:

Sport, especially [ice] hockey, you are going to suffer…What we would like to eliminate

is the unnecessary suffering and the yelling and the berating and the physical, verbal, and

sexual abuse. Eliminate that. Have coaches who are able to communicate with kids on

their level. That’s what a safe sport looks like to me.

Additionally, A5 addressed heinous acts of harm that he endured from his teammates:

They [vets] would sit 6 of us in the middle of the shower and as the veterans came in one

by one and they would piss on us. They would spit on us and squirt flex on us and make

us sing songs. Once they are done showering, then the rookies were able to shower. Other

things were we were regularly on the bus stuck in what we called the stuff pucks, which

is stuffing as many guys as you can naked in the back of the bus bathroom, which is very

small and taping all our clothes in a ball and once you found your clothes and un-tape

them and put them on, then you can come out. As that happened, periodically they would

open the door and throw in piss cups and chew cups and threw all that on us…you asked

me about safe sport; it’s not letting this shit happen to anyone.

Optimisation of Sporting Experiences

Various participants conceptualized safe sport as the optimisation of the sporting

experience. They referred to a need for sport to be inclusive, positive, healthy, and growth-

enhancing for all participants. Additionally, an optimal sport experience was characterized by the

recognition and advocacy of sport as a human right.


A4 interpreted safe sport as the attainment of positive outcomes, such as life skills, and

contrasted this with an unsafe sport experience, characterized by worry and stress:

I shouldn’t have to dread coming to practice or mentally prepare myself to handle or deal

with the coaches and how they feel that day. With safe sport, I should be okay focussed

on being an athlete, doing the best I can, and not in the back of my mind worrying about

what the coaches are going to say or do. I shouldn’t go home with that on my mind either.

It should be about the sport and what I hope to get out of the sport, whether it is

confidence, leadership skills, a healthy lifestyle, pride. Those are the things that I should

be focussing on. I shouldn’t be stressing weeks and months and years later about things

that a coach said or did or how I was treated.

AD1 also equated safe sport with the attainment of positive outcomes when she stated that safe

sport is “all about people coming through sport and coming on the other side of whole, happy,

well-adjusted people.”

Coaches described the fostering of a growth-enhancing environment as an indicator of

safe sport. C1 admitted:

I would say I want to produce a fun-learning environment…I want to put them in a

positive learning space. I use the word fun a lot and people think I mean messing around.

Fun to me is a challenging environment. You want to come, learn, and practice. The

challenge is what makes it fun.

Similarly, C2 stated:

I think the most important thing to me is creating a space that is safe for people. If your

goal ultimately as a coach is to get those athletes to perform at their best, create a safe

space. You are going to get way more out of the human being. Again, it would be an


environment where athletes can come into whatever sporting context they’re in and be

themselves. I can’t remember who said this but I’m stealing it from someone; they can

play with a free mind and an unburdened heart. They can come and make mistakes and

know that it is part of the learning process. A space where failure and learning are

encouraged.

C8 reinforced the positions of many of the coach participants when she said:

I think safe sport, at the end of the day, whether you use that language or not, the goal of

the coach is to provide an environment conducive to learning, health, longevity for the

athlete to be successful both in and out of sport for life. That’s taking into account that

some of these things like physical safety or sexual safety or psychological safety are part

of that picture.

For many of the coaches, defining a safe sport environment extended beyond the physical

environment alone or the prevention of maltreatment, to include the nurturing of an environment

that supports learning, encourages individuality, the development of life skills, and promotes fun.

Defining safe sport as an inclusive and welcoming environment was prevalent among the

administrators. For example, AD3 offered the following:

I would say the phrase we use is safe, welcoming, and inclusive because I don’t believe

you can have one without the other. I think an environment that the individual can bring

their whole self to participate in [sport] for as long as they want and in whatever sport

they want…I would put an emphasis on the kind of environment and the qualities of the

environment; that there is quality coaching, facilities, services available, strong sense of

sport development, the articulation of physical literacy and the basic skill breakdown, that

family and parents have an awareness of what’s going on. I am starting off with


welcoming and inclusive because I focus a lot on the environment. The people, the

environment and programs would be quality.

Many athletes echoed similar perspectives regarding inclusion. When describing safe sport, A12

explained, “I can act how I want to and how I choose to and feel free to openly express who I am

and what I’d like to be in a space where you truly feel safe to do that.”

Finally, some participants emphasized the recognition of sport as a fundamental human

right as being foundational to safe sport. AD13 shared, “Everyone participating in sport is a

person first, so they are entitled to those basic rights like safety.” In A11’s interpretation of safe

sport, he explained:

I think feeling physically safe in your environment is a constant human right; people

can’t hit you and hurt you and facilitate you getting injured. That’s not safe sport…Are

you treated well, with respect, do you have rights, are you emotionally abused, are you

yelled at, are you neglected? You have the right to experience that level of safety in sport

or else why bother? You’re better off not playing and remaining safe.

A11 recognized that it is a human right to experience abuse-free sport. C3 echoed similar

sentiments, when he stated, “our athletes have a right to feel safe and we as coaches don’t have

the right to take that away from them. Athletes need to be educated about their rights or else

what’s the point? We’re jeopardizing their safety.” C3 recognized that the lack of consideration

of athletes’ rights in sport places them at greater risk of unsafe practices. Finally, R3 summarized

the importance of human rights in sport when she said, “when we try and bring a more equitable

humanistic, human rights-based approach to sport, then we do get to safe sport.” For R3, the

recognition and promotion of human rights in sport is fundamental to achieving safe sport.


Evolution of Safe Sport

Safe sport was reportedly conceptualized as a dynamic term, changing over time. C3

recognized that many topics of safe sport addressed today were not discussed earlier in his

career:

When I started coaching or as a player, a lot of that stuff was never talked about. Back 20

or 30 years ago to now, there’s such a growth in promoting safe sport. That has been a

very positive change. As long as it continues to move in that direction, it is going to be

good.

The notion that safe sport has and will continue to evolve in response to societal changes was

reflected in participants’ descriptions of safe sport including references to gender equity, and

inclusion for athletes who identify beyond the gender binary. For example, AD1 spoke about the

importance of addressing trans athletes as part of safe sport, a consideration that would not have

characterized safe sport years ago. According to C8, the evolution up to today has led to the

proliferation of the term safe sport being used by various stakeholders in sport:

I think this is the natural evolution and people need to understand the natural evolution

that is happening. People are oblivious. [The term] safe sport is being abused right now. I

think it is being used in a lot of contexts and maybe to mean the same type of thing, but

definitions are flying off the wall. It’s a natural part of how our sport is evolving at all

levels of sport.

The evolution of sport was also identified by R5, who claimed that historically, the inclusion of

novel rules was meant to minimize the harms associated with sport practices known to celebrate

violence:


In every sport, you had these gradual introductions of rules that made it safer…when you

take a sport like hockey or football and show the evolution of the rules and rule changes

that made it safer, the introduction of padding and helmets for example. The rules

prohibiting hitting another opponent on the head with a stick. All of those kind of things,

increasing the limits on time to give people a chance to recover…was to make sport safer.

For this and other researchers, the pursuit of changes to make sport safer for athletes has always

existed but it is only recently that the term safe sport has emerged and gained popularity.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore various sport participants’ perspectives of the

term safe sport and what it encompasses to inform a conceptual framework for safe sport.

Interviews with athletes, coaches, administrators, and researchers were conducted and their

responses indicated a wide degree of familiarity with the term, ranging from very articulate and

comprehensive descriptions to uncertainty and a complete lack of awareness. In general, the

administrators and researchers were more familiar with and provided more complete descriptions

of safe sport than did the athletes and coaches. This trend may be interpreted as reflecting a top-

down movement. In a top-down system, “governments and others issue policy, and street-level

workers (e.g., clubs, schools, coaches and private enterprises) implement” (May, Harris, &

Collins, 2013, p. 401). In sport, administrators and researchers represent the “top”, given their

role in researching, designing, and implementing safe sport policies and procedures. Coaches and

athletes are expected to adhere to and behave in ways consistent with the safe sport policies

designed at the top of the sport organization. Given the range in awareness of the term, safe

sport, more work needs to be done to ensure coaches and athletes become more aware of and

knowledgeable about safe sport.


Interestingly, even the administrators and researchers who provided thorough

descriptions of safe sport differed in their views of what safe sport encompasses, ranging from

protection from physical harms that stem from participating in an unsafe sporting environment,

to doping-free sport and the prevention of maltreatment, to the optimisation of the sport

experience. These findings indicate that even when participants in sport are familiar with the

term, there is a lack of clarity and consensus about what is meant by it. Participants

acknowledged the ever-changing landscape of safe sport and alluded to the importance of

establishing a universal definition that both prevents harm and advances human rights.

The findings of the study encompass and reinforce the multiple perspectives of sport

safety addressed in the literature. The focus on prevention of physical harm was referenced by

participants when conceptualizing safe sport but many also cited the prevention of athlete

maltreatment. However, some participants’ conceptualizations of safe sport expanded beyond the

prevention of harm to include the optimisation of the sport experience, which was understood as

a positive, fun, safe, and growth-enhancing experience, as well as the recognition and

advancement of human rights in sport. This perspective distinguishes participants’

conceptualization of safe sport from the definitions advanced by most sport organizations that

focus primarily on the prevention of harm. As such, the findings of the study suggest current safe

sport definitions advanced by sport organizations are incomplete and should, in addition to the

prevention of harm, extend to include the optimisation of sport experiences and explicit

recognition and promotion of human rights.

Interpretations of safe sport as encompassing the advancement of human rights in sport

are referred to as a rights-based approach (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization, 2015). Accordingly, sport functions as a vehicle through which human rights are


advanced and from which numerous psychosocial, emotional, and physiological benefits emerge

(Kidd & Donnelly, 2000). Sport perceived through a human rights lens is inclusive (O’Connor &

McNabb, 2020), accessible and educational (United Nations International Children’s Emergency

Fund, 2007), offers participants opportunities for autonomy (Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, &

Brière, 2001), and protects everyone from harm (David, 2005).

Individuals’ rights to access sport and to participate in safe and inclusive sport have been

well-documented over the past 50 years. For example, the European Sport for All Charter in

1976 declared that “Every individual shall have the right to participate in sport” (as cited in

Donnelly, 2008, p. 385). In 1978, the International Charter of Physical Education and Sport

stated, “The practice of physical education and sport is a fundamental right for all” (as cited in

Donnelly, 2008, p. 385). Today, the International Charter of Physical Education, Physical

Activity and Sport (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2015) and

the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) (2007) continue to

acknowledge the fundamental right of all participants to participate in safe, accessible, and

inclusive sport. Specifically, the Charter lobbies for all participants to safely participate in

inclusive and adapted physical education, physical activity, and sport; that qualified personnel

require suitable training to keep participants safe; that adequate safe spaces, equipment, and

facilities are essential to quality experiences; that a safe environment protects the health, rights,

and dignity of all participants; and finally, safety and risk management requires stakeholders to

eradicate practices that limit or harm participants, including “discrimination, racism,

homophobia, bullying, doping and manipulation, deprivation of education, excessive training of

children, sexual exploitation, trafficking and violence” (United Nations Educational, Scientific

and Cultural Organization, 2015, Section 9.2). Conceptions of safety are not limited to the


prevention of harm as depicted by many sport organizations, but includes advancing the quality

of sport experiences, and protecting the rights and preserving the dignity of participants. It is

curious that the definitions of safe sport presented by most sport organizations – at least in North

America – have not positioned themselves similarly. Perhaps the focus on prevention of abuse,

and primarily sexual abuse, has resulted from reactions to high profile media cases of sexual

abuses of athletes.

A rights-based approach to sport also aligns with current principles of safeguarding.

Hedges (2015) describes safeguarding as the protection of children from maltreatment, the

prevention of impairment against children’s health and development, the assurance that all

children grow up in environments that provide safe and effective care, and the commitment to

action that enables every child to experience the best outcomes. The National Society for the

Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) in the UK (2020) defines safeguarding as actions

taken to protect children from harm and promote the welfare of children. NSPCC’s definition of

safeguarding highlights the importance of protecting children from acts of interpersonal violence,

such as maltreatment, preventing harm against the health and development of children, and also

illustrates a commitment to facilitating an environment that enables all children and youth to

obtain the best possible outcomes, to be treated with respect, and be provided with effective and

safe care. The current study’s findings appear to align with such an approach and the principles

of safeguarding.

Although the promotion of safeguarding and a right-based approach has been promoted

by many internationally, most sport organizations have yet to implement this approach and

instead, have operationalized safe sport only. For example, the expressed vision of the US Center

for Safe Sport (2020) is “that every athlete will be safe, supported, and strengthened through


sport.” “Safe” is defined as protecting athletes from emotional, physical, and sexual abuse;

“Supported” means that athletes enjoy welcome, respectful environments and diversity is

actively embraced; and “Strengthened” refers to athletes using the skills they have learned in

sport to contribute to the well-being of their communities and thriving on and off the field of

play. Yet, the Center is limited to responding only to reports of allegations of sexual abuse and

sexual misconduct within the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee and their

recognized National Governing Bodies (NGBs) (US Center for SafeSport, 2020). Similarly,

although the NSPCC (2020) in the UK advocates for safeguarding, its Child Protection in Sport

Unit’s mission is to build the capacity of sports to exclusively safeguard children and young

people in and through sport and to enable sports organisations to lead the way in keeping

children safe from harm. The International Olympic Committee’s (2020) position is focused only

on safeguarding from harassment and abuse and Safe Sport International (2019) advocates for

the elimination, globally, of all forms of violence, abuse, and harassment against athletes of all

ages. We propose that a gap exists between the desire to promote a rights-based approach and the

operationalization of policies and educations which focus on the prevention of harms. We also

propose that safe sport should be viewed as a basic common denominator to all sport

experiences. In other words, assurances of physical, psychological, and social safety should be a

given in sport; when a parent/guardian registers a child in sport, they should be able to assume

their child will be in a safe environment. However, a broadened perspective on safe sport as

inclusive and rights-based extends an understanding of this movement to realizing the promise

and potential of sport as a vehicle through which rights are respected, healthy growth and

development and fulfillment for all are achieved.


In Figure 1. Safe Sport Framework, the model illustrates the basic conceptualization of

safe sport. Many of the participants’ interpretations suggest that definitions of safe sport include

relational and environmental components. Relationally, safe sport focuses on the prevention of

maltreatment within relationships or between sport stakeholders (e.g., physical abuse, sexual

abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, bullying), whereas environmentally, safe sport is defined by the

prevention of physical danger in the sport environment (e.g., injuries caused by the use of faulty

equipment or from participating in a hazardous sport space). This interpretation is most

consistent with the definitions of safe sport presented by sport organizations in North America,

which in its simplest conception, is defined by the prevention of abuse, and at times, extends to

include the prevention of injuries and concussions.

Interestingly, many of the participants’ conceptualizations included a third element,

categorized as the optimisation of the sport experience, and defined by the promotion of positive

values and human rights in sport. Based upon the findings of the study and supportive literature,

we recommend that the term safe sport be replaced with safeguarding; in doing so, sport


relationships and environments that are conducive to the promotion of human rights become the

focus of safety in sport, as illustrated in Figure 2. Safeguarding Sport Framework.

The concept of safeguarding sport is conceptualized as the intersection of all three components:

prevention of harm (relational), prevention of harm (environmental), and the optimisation of the

sport experience, consequently fostering safeguarding relationships and a safeguarding

environment. A safeguarding sport environment is characterized as inclusive, accessible,

welcoming, diverse, challenging, and fun, and a safeguarding relationship is defined as healthy,

abuse-free, educational, motivating, respectful, and fair; these are the expected outcomes of safe

sport, as defined by the participants.

The notion of “optimal” is a relative concept that is everchanging in response to dynamic

societal norms and expectations. For example, current discourses of safe sport include concepts


of inclusion of trans athletes or concussion awareness, which were not previously addressed in

conversations about sport safety. Sport is slowly evolving from its heteronormative, male, White,

and ableist origins to become a platform for athletes of different gender identities and

expressions, races, sexualities, and abilities to challenge hegemonic norms (Boykoff &

Carrington, 2019; Swartz, Bantjes, Knight, Wilmot, & Derman, 2018). The optimisation of the

sport experience will continuously evolve to better include, welcome, and promote the rights,

including safety, of members. To advocate strictly for harm prevention in frameworks of safe

sport is limiting and fails to acknowledge participants’ fundamental right to feel safe, included

and welcomed when participating in sport. As such, we suggest that safeguarding rather than

safety should be the goal of sport.

Reconceptualizing safe sport through a safeguarding lens may alter the current safe sport

movement that has been defined by a cycle of increased and fading attention in which a

scandalous report of athlete abuse emerges, draws significant media and public scrutiny, and

causes sport organizations to reactively respond with new policies and programmes; gradually,

attention wanes until the next crisis emerges (Kerr et al., 2020). Instead, with a safeguarding lens

and the promotion of human rights throughout policies and education, sport would be better

equipped to embrace societal changes and promote an inclusive, accessible, rights-based space

for all.

Conclusions

Safe sport has emerged in response to the growing international concerns of athlete

maltreatment within all levels of sport and to some extent, has evolved to address concerns

related to the physical dangers of participating in sport, such as injuries and concussions. The

findings of the study suggest that the term, safe sport, be replaced with safeguarding; this


reconceptualization would include the eradication of harm and the promotion of individual rights

and welfare within sport. The findings of the study challenge pre-conceived notions of safe sport,

suggesting that the evolution towards safeguarding sport will not only increase safety, but will

promote inclusive, accessible, rights-based sport for all.

The study was limited by focusing primarily on participants from one geographical

region within one country. All the participants were associated with higher, more competitive

levels of sport (e.g., interuniversity coaches and athletes, highly ranked administrators,

researchers). Future research should take into consideration the perspectives of participants

affiliated with sport in varying capacities and levels of sport (e.g., youth coaches, youth athletes,

parents, lower-level sport participants). Potential cross-sport and cross-cultural differences would

be fruitful investigations. Moreover, future directions ought to explore how current safe sport

movements may evolve to advance programmes and procedures grounded in human rights.

References


organised sport in the UK. London, England: NSPCC.

Belgrave, L. L., & Seide, K. (2019). Grounded theory methodology: Principles and practices. In

P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health and social sciences (pp.

299-316). Springer Nature Singapore.

Biggs, S. E., Banks, T. D., Davey, J. D., & Freeman, J. E. (2013). Safety leaders’ perceptions of

safety culture in a large Australasian construction organisation. Safety Science, 52, 3-12.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.04.012

Boykoff, J., & Carrington, B. (2019). Sporting dissent: Colin Kaepernick, NFL activism, and

media framing contests. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 55(7), 829-849.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.04.012


https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690219861594

Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). Grounded theory in historical perspective: An

epistemological account. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of

grounded theory (pp. 31-57). Sage.

Campbell, S. R. (2002). Constructivism and the limits of reason: Revisiting the Kantian

problematic. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21, 421-445.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020844323677

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative

analysis. Sage.

Coaching Association of Canada. (2020). Safe sport training. https://safesport.coach.ca/

Daly, K. J. (2007). Epistemological considerations in qualitative research. In K. J. Daly (Ed.),

Qualitative methods for family studies and human development (pp. 19-42). Sage

Publications.



Diamond, A. B., Dickinson, R., Fiscus, M. D., Heitmann, R., & Radman, M. (2019).

Implementation of safety standards for youth sports leagues: The “safe stars” example in

Tennessee. Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine, 29(5), 398-405.

http://doi.org/10.1097/JSM.0000000000000677

DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical

Education, 40, 314-321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x

Donnelly, P. (2008). Sport and human rights. Sport in Society, 11(4), 381-394.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17430430802019326

https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690219861594

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020844323677


http://doi.org/10.1097/JSM.0000000000000677

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x

https://doi.org/10.1080/17430430802019326


Gampetro, P. J., Segvich, J. P., Jordan, N., Velsor-Friedrich, B., & Burkhart, L. (2019).

Perceptions of pediatric hospital safety culture in the United States: An analysis of the

2016 hospital survey on patient safety culture. Journal of Patient Safety, 1-11.


Child Abuse Review, 13, 215-223. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.843

Green, J. and Thorogood, N. (2009). Qualitative methods for health research. Sage.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin

& Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Sage.

Guskiewicz, K., Teel, E., & McCrea, M. (2014). Concussion: Key stakeholders and

multidisciplinary participation in making sports safe. Neurosurgery, 75(4), s113-s118.

https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000494

Harris, A. J., & Terry, K. J. (2019). Child sexual abuse in organizational settings: A research

framework to advance policy and practice. Sexual Abuse, 31(6), 635-642.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219858144

Hedges, A. (2015). Safeguarding in sport. Sport in Society, 18(5), 614-625.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2014.976010

International Olympic Committee. (2020). IOC safe sport initiatives: Overview.

https://www.olympic.org/safe-sport/

Jones, S., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2014). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative

research in higher education. Routledge.

Kazimierski, Z. (2019). A few remarks on the methodology of the history of safety research.

International Journal of New Economics and Social Sciences, 1(9), 301-310.

Kerr, G., Battaglia A., & Stirling, A. (2019). Maltreatment in youth sport: A systemic issue.

https://doi.org/10.1002/car.843

https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000494

https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219858144

https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2014.976010

https://www.olympic.org/safe-sport/




surveillance system. Sport Management Review, 23, 95-103.


Kerr, G., Kidd, B., & Donnelly, P. (2020). One step forward, two steps back: The struggle for



Kerr, G., Willson, E., & Stirling, A. (2019). Prevalence of maltreatment among current and



pdf

Kidd, B., & Donnelly, P. (2000). Human rights in sports. International Review for the Sociology

of Sport, 35(2), 131-148. https://doi.org/10.1177/101269000035002001

Kukla, A. (2000). Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. London: Routledge.

Lempert, L. B. (2007). Asking questions of the data: Memo writing in the grounded theory

tradition. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp.

245-264). Sage.

May, T., Harris, S., & Collins, M. (2013). Implementing community sport policy: Understanding

the variety of voluntary club types and their attitudes to policy. International Journal of

Sport Policy and Politics, 5(3), 397-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2012.735688

Morse, J. M. (2007). Sampling in grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage

handbook of grounded theory (pp. 229-244). Sage.

Moskovitz, D. (2018). SafeSport, The USOC's attempt to stop child abuse, is set up

https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2019-0016





https://doi.org/10.1177/101269000035002001

https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2012.735688


to fail – just like it was supposed to. Deadspin. https://deadspin.com/safesport-the-usocs-

attempt-to-stop-child-abuse-is-se-1826279217/




Nalepa, B., Alexander, A., Schodrof, S., Bernick, C., & Pardini, J. (2017). Fighting to keep a

sport safe: Toward a structured and sport-specific return to play protocol. The Physician

and Sportsmedicine, 45(2), 145-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913847.2017.1288544

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). (2020). Keep children safe

in sport. https://thecpsu.org.uk/

Novkov, J. (2019). Law, policy, and sexual abuse in the #metoo movement: USA gymnastics

and the agency of minor athletes. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 40(1), 42-74.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2019.1563412

O’Connor, U., & McNabb, J. (2020). Improving the participation of students with special

educational needs in mainstream physical education classes: A rights-based perspective.

Educational Studies, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1719385

Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Brière, N. M. (2001). Associations among

perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective

study. Motivation and Emotion, 25(4), 279-306.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014805132406

Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017, Public

Law 115-126, 36 U.S.C. §§101-102 (2018).





https://doi.org/10.1080/00913847.2017.1288544

https://thecpsu.org.uk/

https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2019.1563412

https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1719385

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014805132406



Safe Sport International. (2019). Abuse of athletes happens.

http://www.safesportinternational.com/

Stirling, A. E., & Kerr, G. A. (2007). Elite female swimmers’ experiences of emotional abuse

across time. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 7(4), 89-113.

https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v7n04_05

Stirling, A. E., & Kerr, G. A. (2009). Abused athletes’ perceptions of the coach-athlete

relationship. Sport in Society, 12(2), 227-239.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17430430802591019

Swartz, L., Bantjes, J., Knight, B., Wilmot, G., & Derman, W. (2018). “They don’t understand

that we also exist”: South African participants in competitive disability sport and the

politics of identity. Disability and Rehabilitation, 40(1), 35-41.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2016.1242171

US. Center for SafeSport. (2020). US center for safesport. https://uscenterforsafesport.org/

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2015).

International Charter of Physical Education, Physical Activity and Sport. UNESCO.

International Charter of Physical Education, Physical Activity and Sport (unesco.org)

United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund. (2007). A human rights-based

approach to education for all. UNICEF.

https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/A_Human_Rights_Based_Approach_to_Educat

ion_for_All.pdf/

United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2012). Safesport. USPTO.

https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85475739&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=st

atusSearch

Vertommen, T., Schipper-van Veldhoven, N. H. M. J., Hartill, M. J., & Van Den Eede, F.


https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v7n04_05

https://doi.org/10.1080/17430430802591019

https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2016.1242171


https://en.unesco.org/themes/sport-and-anti-doping/sport-charter

https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/A_Human_Rights_Based_Approach_to_Education_for_All.pdf/

https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/A_Human_Rights_Based_Approach_to_Education_for_All.pdf/




(2015). Sexual harassment and abuse in sport: The NOC*NSF helpline. International

Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(7), 822-839.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690213498079

World Health Organization. (2020). Child maltreatment. WHO.


Yablon, Y. B., & Addington, L. A. (2018). Students’ feeling of safety in school: Does frequency

of victimization matter? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(1), 26–38.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-017-9410-x

https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690213498079


https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-017-9410-x


135

CHAPTER FOUR: STUDY 2

An exploration of athletes’ conceptualization and experiences of safe sport


Abstract

With developments in the field of safe sport, there is a growing concern that the

experiences and needs of stakeholders with under-represented identities are unaccounted for.

Research within and outside of sport confirms stakeholders with marginalized identities are at

increased risk of experiencing harm. Despite the efforts of sport organizations to advance a

culture of safe sport, these efforts are criticized for a lack of empirical or theoretical foundation

and the absence of insight from vulnerable populations, such as athletes or stakeholders from

equity deserving groups. Consequently, these groups remain susceptible to unsafe sport

experiences. As such, the purpose of this study was to explore the meanings and experiences of

safe sport as reported by athletes with marginalized identities. Grounded within an interpretive

phenomenological analysis, semi-structured interviews were used to understand how athletes

with marginalized identities conceptualize and experience safe sport. Seven participants,

including two Black male athletes, two White, gay male athletes, one Middle Eastern female

athlete, one White, physically disabled female athlete, and one White, non-binary, queer,

physically disabled athlete were asked to conceptualize and describe their experiences of safe

sport. The findings revealed these athletes perceived safe sport as an unrealistic and unattainable

ideal that cannot fully be experienced by those from equity-deserving groups. This interpretation

was reinforced by reported experiences of verbal and non-verbal discrimination, perpetrated by

coaches, teammates, and the overarching structure of sport. Verbal acts of discrimination

included prejudice comments and stereotyping, whereas non-verbal acts of discrimination

included acts of exclusion. The findings indicated that athletes who could suppress their identity

from the public (e.g., White, gay males) reportedly experienced fewer unsafe experiences in

sport compared to athletes who had visible characteristics that made them vulnerable to

discrimination (e.g., Black or disabled athletes). The findings confirm athletes with marginalized

identities are at increased risk of experiencing harm in sport, thus challenging the relevance of

safe sport initiatives to equity-deserving groups.

Keywords: safe sport, identity, discrimination, equity-deserving


Introduction

In response to revelations of the abuse of athletes (Alexander et al., 2011; Kerr et al.,

2019; Vertommen et al., 2016), many sport organizations have developed policies, procedures,

and programmes to prevent and eliminate abuse and discrimination from sport (Coaching

Association of Canada, 2020; Safe Sport International, 2019; US Center for SafeSport, 2020).

Typically, the term safe sport is interpreted as efforts to prevent and address abuse, harassment,

discrimination, or maltreatment in sport (Kerr et al., 2020; Mountjoy et al., 2016; 2020).

However, a recent study conducted by Gurgis and Kerr (2021) revealed that stakeholders in sport

(i.e., athletes, coaches, sport administrators, and researchers) understood the term safe sport as

the prevention of maltreatment, the prevention of physical harm (e.g., injuries and concussions),

and the optimisation of the sport experience (e.g., promotion of human rights in sport).

Regarding the latter interpretation of optimizing the sport experience, participants described the

rights all participants should have to experience safe, inclusive, and accessible sport.

However, recent prevalence studies of maltreatment experiences amongst athletes

indicate that experiences of safe, inclusive, and accessible sport vary according to the identity of

the athlete. Identity is a complex construct that has been construed in many ways (Cassidy et al.,

2009). According to Miller (2009), “identity is best conceptualized as an accretion of the

composite meanings individuals attach to the roles they typically play in interpersonal situations;

these meanings both frame interpretations of social reality and guide behavioral expectations” (p.

364). Identities are formulated through the recursive relationship individuals have with society;

the meanings we associate with our identities are constantly renegotiated through a dialectic

process of self-reflection paired with external evaluations of the self made by other members of

society (Miller, 2009). Individuals may hold several identities organized hierarchically, with


more salient representations of the self being invoked across different social contexts

(Haralambos & Holborn 2000; Miller, 2009).

Intersectionality, a term coined by Black feminist scholar and lawyer Kimberlé Crenshaw

in 1989, described how aspects of identity are experienced simultaneously. Intersectionality

investigates the intersections of various identities, such as race, gender, and sexuality (Crenshaw,

1991). The notion of intersectionality accepts that an individual’s identity is structured by

various modes of oppression that are mutually reinforcing (Anderson & McCormack, 2010). The

foundation of intersectionality positions individuals “within larger structures of inequality and

advances an analytic framework for understanding how privilege and oppression influences that

individual” (Jones et al., 2014, p. 65). There is emerging research confirming that individuals

with marginalized or under-represented intersecting identities, or individuals from equity-

deserving groups, are more susceptible to experiencing maltreatment in sport. Individuals with

under-represented identities have also been described as equity-deserving. Universities have used

the term equity-seeking to acknowledge the underrepresentation of particular groups, such as

Indigenous Peoples, women, and individuals with disabilities; the term equity-deserving has

emerged in place of equity-seeking, which “shifts attention towards Black, Indigenous, People of

Colour, Women, People with (dis)abilities, and LGBTQ2+ people as deserving of representation

and belonging” (Global Water Futures, 2021, p. 7). Additionally, equity-deserving challenges the

assumption that under-represented groups need to seek equity, given their fundamental right to

experience it (University of Toronto, 2019).

Alexander, Stafford, and Lewis (2011) employed a mixed-methods approach to examine

children’s experiences of harm in organized sport in the UK; the findings revealed that female

athletes reported more regular experiences of certain types of emotional harm, including being


embarrassed or humiliated, bullied, criticized for weight/looks, being threatened, and being

ignored in ways that makes one feel bad. Additionally, there was a higher rate of female athletes

who strongly agreed that their sport experience contributed to poor body image and taught them

to dislike their body. While this study did not have significant representation from equity-

deserving groups, a few interviews suggested that gay male athletes may be more susceptible to

homophobic or sexual bullying; however, these behaviours appear to be dismissed or normalized

by the athletes, despite reporting feelings of discomfort. Similarly, in a study conducted by

Vertommen and colleagues (2016), females reported greater experiences of sexual violence in

sport compared to males. Additionally, disabled, ethnic minority, and LGB (lesbian, gay, bi-

sexual) athletes reportedly experienced greater acts of interpersonal violence, including

psychological, sexual, and physical harm, in sport, compared to their heterosexual, able-bodied,

native (Belgian or Dutch) counterparts. Finally, in a recent study conducted by Kerr, Willson,

and Stirling (2019), which explored the prevalence of maltreatment experienced by Olympic and

Paralympic athletes in Canada, current and retired female athletes reported significantly more

experiences of psychological, physical, sexual harm, and neglect than their male counterparts.

Racialized athletes reported significantly more physical harm and athletes who identified as

LGBTQ reported significantly more sexually harmful experiences.

These studies examining athletes’ experiences of harm suggest that athletes with under-

represented identities have different experiences of maltreatment in sport. However, in all

studies, identity of the athletes was analyzed as a singular rather than as an intersectional

construct and the experiences of those with under-represented identities were not the focus of

any of these studies. One’s social identity (e.g., gender, race, sexuality) is not experienced in

isolation from others. Exploring the views of athletes with under-represented identities is


important given the existing literature within and outside the context of sport indicating that

those who identify with equity-deserving groups experience more forms of violence and

maltreatment (Martin-Storey et al., 2020; Miller & Nakazawa, 2015; Miller-Perrin & Perrin,

2013). As such, the purpose of this study, therefore, was to explore the meanings and

experiences of safe sport as reported by athletes with under-represented identities. More

specifically, the current study aimed to address the research questions of: (i) how do athletes with

under-represented identities interpret the construct safe sport? And, (ii) how do athletes with

under-represented identities experience safe sport?

Methodology and Methods


This study is situated within a critical theory paradigm. The objective of implementing a

critical theory paradigm is to confront “social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gender

structures”, which inhibit and exploit individuals (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 113). Critical theory

upholds the values of advocacy and activism, which over time may lead to the achievement of

liberation and restoration (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Within this worldview, the investigator

adopts the roles of “instigator and facilitator”, which implies the researcher understands a priori

the transformations required to liberate various oppressed groups (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p.

113). This paradigm was implemented in the current inquiry to critique the social injustices that

interfere with athletes’ abilities to fully experience and positively conceptualize safe sport. Pre-

existing knowledge regarding the benefits and characteristics of safe sport are used to inform the

methods and interactions between the investigator and participants.


Ontology

A critical theory paradigm assumes a historical realist ontology in which reality is

“shaped by a congeries of social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gender factors, and

then crystallized into a series of structures that are now taken as ‘real,’ that is, natural and

immutable” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 110). The ontological assumptions of this study assume a

reality that deems it socially and culturally acceptable to safely participate in sport, irrespective

of how athletes choose to identify themselves, while acknowledging the historical forms of

discrimination that have interfered with athletes experiencing safe sport.

Epistemology

Critical theory is grounded within a transactional/subjectivist epistemology. A critical

theory epistemology suggests that the values of the researcher influence the participants and

research process (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). As such, there is an epistemological assumption that

the researcher and their participants are interactively connected, thus generating value mediated

findings (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 110). In addition to being value mediated, knowledge is said

to be knowledge dependent (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The epistemological assumptions of this

study consider my premeditated views of safe sport, which challenge historic realities and

knowledge of safety that have been normalized as sufficient in sport. The emergence of findings

is dependent on my subjective values and knowledge of safe sport being discussed and

negotiated with the values and knowledge of my participants.

Methodology

Studies situated within a critical theory paradigm are conducted using dialogic and

dialectical methodologies (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). A dialectical dialogue between the

investigator and participants is meant to stimulate a shift from ignorance and misunderstanding


about certain topics into enlightenment and self-awareness (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). By doing so,

participants come to understand how structures may be altered by an effective change of

behaviours (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This study is methodologically informed by interpretive

phenomenological analysis (IPA). IPA is a methodological strand of phenomenology, developed

“to allow rigorous exploration of idiographic subjective experiences…and social cognitions”

(Biggerstaff & Thompson, 2008, p. 215). IPA explores in depth the lived experiences of an

individual and how they make sense of their personal experiences (Smith, 2004). IPA is

classified as a double hermeneutic, whereby a researcher attempts to make sense of a participant,

who simultaneously is attempting to make sense of their own social and personal world (Smith,

2004). Successful IPA research requires the researcher to gather reflective, thorough, original

data from the research participants and for the researcher to offer an interpretation of the data

that is grounded in the shared accounts or other psychological concepts; these processes are

referred to as “giving voice” and “making sense” (Larkin & Thompson, 2012, p. 101). In this

study, the phenomenon of interest is the influence of identity on athletes’ conceptualizations and

experiences of safe sport; an IPA methodology was employed to make sense of the social

conditions that affect equity-deserving athletes’ interpretations and individualistic lived

experiences of safe sport.

Methods

Participants

Often, IPA studies are conducted with small and homogenous samples (Larkin &

Thompson, 2012; Tamminen et al., 2013). The quality of data gathered through a small sample

size, rather than the quantity of data, is meant to generate insightful analyses (Larkin &

Thompson, 2012). The following study sought to understand how current and retired high-


performance athletes with under-represented identities conceptualize and experience safe sport.

For this study, seven athletes were recruited.

Paul was a retired interuniversity basketball player, who had been out of sport for two

years and identified as a Black, Muslim, heterosexual male. James was a current interuniversity

basketball player, who identified as a Black, Christian, heterosexual male. Mary was a retired

interuniversity swimmer, who had been out of sport for one year and identified as a Middle

Eastern, Coptic Christian, heterosexual female. Ruth is a current Paralympic swimmer who

identified as a White, heterosexual female with a physical disability. Thomas was a retired

interuniversity swimmer, who had bee out of sport for two years and identified as a White, gay

male. Peter was a retired Olympic swimmer, who identified as a White, gay male. Finally,

Danielle Peers is a retired Paralympic wheelchair basketball player who identified as White, non-

binary, queer, and as having a physical disability.

Rationale for Participant Inclusion. This study included participants who reflected the

intersections of various identities often oppressed by societal structures of inequality. Conducting

research on equity-deserving participants can enhance our awareness of the various inequalities

that manifest “from the complex interactions of social identities” (Simien et al., 2019, p. 410).

Moreover, the absence of research exploring equity-deserving athletes’ experiences of safe sport

limits our understanding of how oppressed individuals experience safety in sport. Conducting

safe sport research with equity-deserving athletes (a) enhances our understanding of the

oppressive societal and environmental factors that make sport unsafe for underrepresented

participants, and (b) educates us on how to effectively respond to systemic barriers of inequality

so that we may advance safe sport for athletes with under-represented identities. Finally, given

that athletes are generally considered the most vulnerable population involved in sport (Dean &


Rowan, 2014), we found it crucial to understand the experiences of vulnerability endured by

equity-deserving athletes, who may be susceptible to further harm because of their identity.

Anonymity of Participants. Six participants were assigned a pseudonym to ensure

confidentiality was preserved, which were: Paul, James, Peter, Thomas, Ruth, and Mary. The

seventh participant is Danielle Peers (hereon referred to as Danielle), a professor at the

University of Alberta who chose to waive confidentiality in favour of being identified.

Measures

Data Collection. Semi-structured interviews are frequently used in phenomenological

studies to acquire detailed descriptions of experienced phenomenon (Creswell, 2007). Individual,

semi-structured interviews were conducted face-to-face via the video conferencing platform

Zoom Video Communications, necessitated by the pandemic-related restrictions that limited in-

person interviews. The interviews ranged between 60 and 130 minutes and with the consent of

the participants, were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Conducting one-on-one, semi-

structured interviews are meant to elicit detailed narratives and stories (DiCicco-Bloom &

Crabtree, 2006). With the permission of the interviewee, interviews were audio-recorded and

transcribed verbatim. In IPA studies, interviews offer the researcher “reflective recollections”

that “require interpretive analysis by the researcher in order to produce a human science

(phenomenological) description of the experience of the interviewee” (Sloan & Bowe, 2013, p.

1298). The inclusion of open-ended questions in IPA studies is imperative so that participants

feel they have opportunities to explain their experiences of the phenomenon and the personal

interpretations they make of it (Jones et al., 2014).

Instruments. An interview guide was prepared and included the following areas of

conversation: demographics, background and rapport-building, knowledge of safe sport, personal


experiences of safe sport, facilitators and barriers to experiencing safe sport, recommendations

for advancing safe sport, and final thoughts. When used with IPA studies, an interview guide is

not meant to be prescriptive, but rather flexible to enable participants to describe events that they

perceived to be meaningful (Biggerstaff & Thompson, 2008; Smith et al., 2009). Participants

were asked questions such as: “What does safe sport mean to you?”, “What are your personal

experiences of safe sport?”, “Has your identity influenced your sense of safety in sport? If so,

how?” and, “How do you think people of various identities (e.g., race, sexuality, disability) in

and out of sport experience safe sport?”

Reflexivity. Jones and colleagues (2014) emphasized the importance of researchers being

constantly reflexive when conducting phenomenological research. Patton (2002) explained

“internal reflection allows for a phenomenological attitude shift and makes pre-understanding

clear” (p. 485). Prior to data analysis, I underwent a thorough process of self-reflection.

Researchers conducting IPA research adhere to two reflexive processes: epoché and bracketing

(phenomenological reduction) (Berry et al., 2010). Epoché involves the researcher to set aside

normalized interpretations and understandings of the phenomena under investigation so that it

may be explored naively and with an open mind (Moustakas, 1994). Bracketing, referred to in

phenomenology as reduction, requires the researcher to suspend, or bracket, his/her individual

interpretations and meanings and enter the unique world as perceived by the participant(s)

(Hycner, 1985). Although it is impossible to fully “bracket out,” as van Manen (1990) suggested,

it is beneficial to explicitly clarify our personal beliefs, assumptions, and biases, to expose our

pre-conceived understandings that may impact the phenomenon of interest (p. 47).

The pre-determined understandings I had to set aside before conducting my interviews

revolve around a priori knowledge I possess within the area of safe sport gained through the


privileged access of various resources made available to me as a researcher. It is critical for me

to be self-aware that others may not share the same view or knowledge pertaining to safe sport,

nor may they have access to the resources that illuminate one’s awareness and understanding of

these concepts. Moreover, as a heterosexual, able-bodied, Christian male who identifies as a

person of colour, it was critical that I did not project my own beliefs or biases regarding the

various conditions affecting safe sport, including identity. By not projecting my personal views

of safe sport on my participants, I allowed for organic, untampered experiences of safe sport to

be introduced and discussed, as experienced or understood by athletes with under-represented

identities.

Procedures

Recruitment. Participants were recruited using purposeful sampling, a common type of

participant selection in qualitative inquiry that permits the researcher to select participants who

possess specific knowledge or experience that relates to the topic of study (Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2011). Participant selection is directly influenced by the sampling criteria, which is

described as the characteristics, experiences, demographics, and qualities directly related to the

study’s purpose and research questions (Jones et al., 2014). Sampling criteria may include

demographic information (e.g., social class, gender, age, or ethnicity), particular status or

membership in a community or organization, level of involvement in a group or program, and/or

direct relation to the phenomenon under study (Jones et al., 2014). This study strictly recruited

high-performance athletes given the findings from previous research that experiences of

maltreatment increase as competitive level increases (Gervis & Dunn, 2004). Additionally,

athletes with under-represented identities were recruited based upon previous research indicating


that systemic factors of inequity and interpersonal violence affect those with under-represented

identities in disproportionate ways.

Data analysis. According to Sparkes and Smith (2013), the researcher progresses

through six steps when conducting an IPA. In Step 1, reading and re-reading, the researcher

reads through the transcripts multiple times to develop a sense of understanding of the

participants’ stories. During this process, the researcher may record notes or personal thoughts

regarding the events depicted within the transcripts. In step 2, the researcher is required to

identify and label themes. At this stage, the analysis progresses to a higher level of interpretation

focused on “finding patterns of expression which are high level enough to allow theoretical

connections within and across cases, but which are still grounded in the particularity of the

specific thing said” (p. 128). Step 3, connecting themes, requires the researcher to further

develop the initial themes proposed in Step 2 by looking for connections. In this stage, themes

are categorized based upon the higher-order relationships established between one another.

When clusters of themes that emerge share similar meanings or references, it is referred to as

abstraction. When themes appear as superordinate concepts, it is referred to as subsumption. In

clustering themes, the researcher must be sure to use consistent language that reflects the actual

dialogue experienced with the participant. In Step 4, the researcher attempts to elaborate on and

establish connections between emerging themes by producing a table. The table includes

“lists…[of] themes that go with each superordinate theme”; additionally, “an identifier is added

to each instance to aid the organisation of the analysis and facilitate finding the original source

subsequently” (p. 128). An identifier reveals where specific themes can be found within the

transcript. In Step 5, the researcher continues analysis by searching for patterns among other

cases. In this step, the researcher identifies similar patterns among emerging themes, but also


identify new issues that emerge within the transcript. Finally, Step 6, writing, involves the

researcher explaining and illustrating the themes in a coherent manner.

Ethical Considerations. Goodkind and Deacon (2004) explained how research on or

with equity-deserving groups has historically exacerbated and reinforced the oppression affecting

research participants. Specific groups of participants, such as individuals of colour, have

reportedly been “over-researched, exploited for capital gains, and dehumanized as a statistic”

(Tabron, 2019, p. 275). Additionally, interviewing individuals with under-represented identities

may elicit feelings of anxiety and distress as participants reflect on and discuss potential

traumatic experiences (Hollway & Jefferson, 1997). Several steps were taken to ensure the

participants would feel safe throughout this research process. Firstly, standard research

procedures were followed, and the study underwent ethical review through an institutional

review board at the University of Toronto to ensure the study design was ethically appropriate.

Prior to participating, participants were sent a letter of information addressing the nature of the

study and the participants’ rights. All the participants met the minimum age of consent and were

required to sign a consent form before participating in an interview. Furthermore, Parson (2019),

indicated “considering one’s positionality is the first step toward conducting research that

contributes to more equity in society, instead of reproducing inequity or diminishing it” (p. 16).

Positionality requires the researcher to critically examine their social position within various

power structures (Strunk & Locke, 2019). The positionality of a researcher ultimately influences

the types of questions being asked and the analysis of the gathered information. As previously

discussed, prior to conducting any research, I engaged in a process of critical reflection; this

process was essential to ensure I could develop open-ended questions that did not project

assumptions on the participants based upon my understanding of the literature or my privilege as


a heterosexual, male researcher. Rather, I was able to construct questions that provided

participants the opportunity to freely discuss any experience they felt comfortable sharing.

Moreover, throughout the interviews, I engaged in a process of fact checking to ensure my

interpretation of the participants’ experiences were aligned with the messages they were trying to

convey.

Results

Meanings of Safe Sport

For many athletes, there was uncertainty about the meaning of safe sport. Participants

interrogated current interpretations of safe sport and raised doubts about whether safe sport was

relevant, realistic, or obtainable for equity-deserving athletes. For example, Thomas admitted:

I’m not sure if I can define it [safe sport] for you. It doesn’t seem real, at least not for me.

I’m gay and so safe sport seems idealistic. In theory, sure safe sport is happy and fun and

accepting and all that good stuff. I didn’t experience that, probably because I’m gay. So

safe sport seems like an unrealistic load of crap. I should be able to swim, but sport

became such a nightmare. That needs to change.

Paul echoed similar sentiments, as he suggested that Black people are denied the benefits of safe

sport that White people appear to often benefit from:

As of right now I don’t think a Black person can experience safe sport like a White

person does. Unless they’re willing to address the whole race issue. If they’re not able to

speak up, see eye to eye and recognize these Black athletes as more than people they are

using for money, but people they respect too, that’s when Black people will be able to

have a better definition for themselves of safe sport.


Similarly, James, a Black male basketball player, agreed that safe sport was an ideal that could

not be fully experienced by Black athletes:

It’s up in the air if Black athletes can ever receive safe sport. There are a lot of

uncontrollables in safe sport…Black people or people of colour won’t experience safe

sport in certain instances…A lot of time there are people that are White that are in power,

coaching staff, head of athletics…you need to be better than your White counterparts to

succeed in a sense. That adds to the pressure of being a Black athlete in a White majority.

It’s not to say we can’t experience safe sport. Athletes of colour can experience safe sport

to an extent, but not fully.

Again, we see how contemporary conceptualizations of safe sport do not accurately reflect the

safety and well-being of athletes alike, with Black athletes being at an apparent greater

disadvantage, similar to gay athletes as noted by Thomas. Additionally, Ruth, a female

Paralympic swimmer, suggested that safe sport looks different for participants with varying

abilities:

I think safe sport is different for everybody because everybody has different needs that

need to be addressed. I think the definition can stay the same in general terms; there’s

core values that should apply to everyone. Not feeling discriminated against, feeling safe

alone in a room with a coach or an official or somebody that’s higher up in authority,

making sport fair and equal for everyone, making sure people feel healthy and happy, but

you have to consider more factors for Para-athletes. Para-athletes have a range of

abilities; some are strictly physical or cognitive and some athletes have both. What safe

sport means to those individual athletes will differ because they experience safety

differently in response to their unique challenges.


Ruth’s broad interpretation of safe sport embraces principles that apply to everyone alike;

however, she recognized how the distinct characteristics that distinguish athletes from equity-

deserving groups from societal-normative identities renders safety a unique experience for

different athletes. In defining safe sport, Danielle, a retired, non-binary, queer, Paralympic

athlete, raised questions of legitimacy:

Safe sport to me is about seeing how certain harms are unequally distributed and how the

benefits of sport and opportunities to play sport are unequally distributed. Who gets to

bring their whole self to sport and who gets to bring a small fraction of themselves to

sport to be safe? What kinds of contortions do people have to do to be okay when they

are playing sport? I would be on the spectrum of the broadest possible definition as to

what degree does sport perpetuate harm or sporting environments perpetuate harm,

produce harm, larger social harms, refuse to insulate people from or resist social harms

that are largely socially available. To what point do we refuse harm reduction and refuse

harm recognition as parts of safe sport? So, very broad.

The questions posed by Danielle further supported the claims made by the other athletes that safe

sport is advantageous to normative participants of sport.

Although the relevance of the concept of safe sport to the participants was questioned,

safe sport was interpreted as extending beyond physical safety to the advancement of positive

values, such as inclusion, fairness, and acceptance. For example, Paul described safe sport as:

Any activity or sport that has no boundaries in terms of who you are. You shouldn’t feel

unsafe or uncomfortable because you’re gay, a Christian, Black, or Asian. And I know

people do feel that…I’m Black, so no oppression, no biases, in terms of facing the other

teams or people…It’s important that safe doesn’t just mean ‘I’m not going to get injured’,


but it also refers to a fair playing field. I’m not going to be nervous that my opponent

may injure me or that he’ll have the upper hand because I’m Black and he’s White or

because the ref is White…Your identity shouldn’t interfere with your right to play, but it

does and so we won’t have safe sport until that changes.

Paul’s definition of safe sport goes beyond interpretations of physical safety to address how

intersections of sexuality, faith, and ethnicity may negatively affect athletes’ opportunities to

equitably experience safe sport. Safe sport was understood as an ideal that could not be achieved

until racial biases, and other forms of discrimination, are removed from sport. For Peter, a retired

gay, male Olympian, safe sport was understood as an environment that encouraged expression

and penalized those who silenced and oppressed others:

I somehow picture an environment where people feel comfortable in their own skin, if

something inappropriate happens, there’s recourse, process, some mechanism that says

this is not okay…The safeness starts when people feel they can speak out to defend

someone that is being abused…A lot of sport administrators from my niche in the

LGBTQ world won’t come out because of all sorts of horrible things get thrown and

confused and there are certain people on the other side of society that think if you are

working with kids and you’re gay that you’re a pedophile. There are some really scary

things that get promoted out there for coaches.

Athletes’ Experiences of Safe/Not So Safe Sport

Verbal Acts of Discrimination

When asked about experiences of safe sport, every participant included experiences of

discrimination because of their race, ability, sexuality, or gender. The experiences of

discrimination manifested in various ways. For example, some athletes shared experiences of


discrimination through verbal acts, characterized by the use of insensitive or derogatory

comments. Ruth, a White, physically disabled, female athlete shared personal experiences of

bullying from teammates who patronized her because of her physical disability:

I hear what others say. ‘Why is she even here?’ ‘Go easy on her.’ ‘They feel bad for her.’

‘She should swim with her kind.’ It’s hurtful. I struggle because I see myself as an

athlete. You ask me, I’m a swimmer. I’m not a female swimmer, I’m not a disabled

swimmer, I’m a swimmer.

Peter, a White, gay, male, retired Olympic swimmer, was also exposed to an unsafe sport

environment, characterized by frequent exchanges with other stakeholders who would use

homophobic language:

I’ve had the word ‘fag’ follow me around for a long time. In school that was the case. I

made the mistake of hitting on an Australian guy who I thought was gay when I was

about 19 at a swim meet, and all the Australian team thought I was a fag. The vernacular

in the locker room lends itself to that as well. That’s where much of our hazing took

place. I’d rather not get into that. It’s there. I’d rather not dig it up. It was not pleasant,

and it was always around ‘fag’ and ‘get down on your knees’, that sort of stuff.

Similarly, Thomas, a White, gay, male, retired interuniversity swimmer, admitted to being

addressed negatively because of his sexuality. Thomas expressed, “It’s almost as if they saw that

[sexuality] as my weakness. As if it made me less of a man…I’d be called ‘pussy’, ‘fairy.’”

Verbal acts of discrimination were commonly reported by both Black athletes,

specifically through the acts of stereotyping. Paul, a Black, male, retired from interuniversity

basketball, shared:


I had teammates, Black guys and non-Black guys, who would tell me to start playing like

a nigga. Not nigger, nigga. For them, nigger was a proper Black man, whereas nigga was

a tougher version of a Black man. A nigga knows how to ball, is fast, flashy, and doesn’t

take shit from anyone…it was their way of telling me to toughen up and play

aggressive…obviously there are better ways to motivate someone. I didn’t personally like

the label…It [racial slur] brings us [Black people] down.

Similarly, James, a Black, Christian male, who was currently competing as an interuniversity

basketball player, reported experiences of stereotyping perpetrated by his coach:

I’ve experienced microaggressions from coaches on my team. They would say

questionable things at the time like, ‘you can jump high or run fast because you’re

Black.’ There was a little tension because of the things he [coach] said. He did it in a way

not to harm me, but to encourage or support me or make me laugh. There was a big

misconception of his understanding of microaggressions and how that can negatively

impact someone. It’s toxic. Doing that over the 4 years…those things weren’t cool. Not

just to me, but to other players of different cultures. Even White people, he would tell

them they can’t jump because they’re White.

Although the stereotyping was not perceived to have malicious intent, the rationalized use of

these prejudice comments (i.e., to support or for humour) demonstrates how stereotyping can

make a person feel unsafe and can contribute to an unsafe sport culture. In addition to

experiencing racial microaggressions, James admitted that his coach would frequently make

insensitive comments based upon assumptions of faith:

I know me and some of the Christians on the team would get heat at times and made fun

of by certain coaches. I remember my first year, we were trying to get pre-game prayer as


one of the things we would do before the game and our coach was hesitant to put it in

there and he’s wondering why we would even suggest it. There were a lot of side jokes

about Christianity by coaches. Like, ‘you guys are with Athletes in Action but you’re

athletes that get no action.’

Finally, Mary, a Middle Eastern, female, retired swimmer, described how training alongside

male athletes made her susceptible to various misogynistic stereotypes.

Just stupid comments, like ‘shouldn’t you be in the kitchen?’ Or, ‘is it that time of month

again?’…other girls got it just as bad. I think it comes with the territory of training with

guys. In swimming we do everything together, whether its practice, lifts, or tournaments.

So, you get caught up in the crossfire of what people call locker room talk…it doesn’t

help that we tend to be sexualized a lot more because of what we wear, so from time to

time you catch guys staring or catcalling. They have no right, but that doesn’t stop them.

Additionally, as a Middle Eastern female, Mary noted how some teammates questioned the

appropriateness of her competing in sport:

The comments they [teammates] made about my ethnicity would go overboard at times.

Guys asked if I received permission from my father to swim and whether I was going to

get stoned for showing my skin and hair…There was this one time when a guy threw a

towel on my head and called it the swimmer’s hijab, which was just disturbing. And I’m

a Christian Middle Eastern, so we aren’t required to wear a hijab.

For Mary, the intersections of her ethnicity and gender exposed her to verbal acts of

discrimination influenced by the stereotypes held by individuals’ perceptions of being female

and Middle Eastern.


Non-Verbal Acts of Discrimination

In addition to being discriminated against by prejudice criticisms and comments, many

participants also experienced non-verbal acts of discrimination based upon how they identify and

are presumably perceived by others. Thomas admitted that because of his sexuality, he was

bullied in ways that suggested he was feminine:

I had a teammate who always thought it was funny to pair me with the girls whenever we

had group training. Guys would put tampons in my gym bag or order me girly drinks at

team functions…you know the saying, ‘one of the guys?’ To some of them, I was ‘one of

the girls.’

Danielle elaborated on the coercive and insensitive tactics used by able-bodied coaches against

physically disabled athletes:

I’ve had coaches that sent memes to athletes about three-legged dogs and paralyzed dogs

to inspire us to play better in the next game. Non-disabled folks sending these things

along…even within our own community. I think of the internal violence that disabled

athletes do to each other in terms of the mocking of Special Olympics by Paralympians.

The devaluation of the competition by particular athletes…The devaluation of disabled

athletes, athletic capacities, experiences, the way systemically disabled people are

blocked from becoming leaders in their own sports…I’ve experienced and seen in

athletes an incredible amount of harm to do with the amount of continual surveillance and

coercion from able-bodied coaches…I’d say, having an impairment that isn’t stable and

static made me more subject to scrutiny around classification and certainly made and set

me up to be forced or coerced to do things by my coaching staff that were explicitly


against the agreed upon protocol that would keep me safe. So that has to do specifically

with disability.

For Danielle, the web became an avenue for different able-bodied stakeholders to disrespect and

criticize those with a physical disability. Additionally, the overarching system of Paralympic

sport, characterized as a space of surveillance and coercion that is often dominated by able-

bodied coaches, created a culture of sport that is perceived to further suppress athletes with a

disability.

A few participants described how they have been excluded from participating in sport

because of how they are perceived by others. Paul explained a situation whereby he was benched

for being Black:

My coach wouldn’t play me and there was never an explanation why. Before I made the

team, there was another Black player who I knew from club, who was playing and

eventually quit. He found out I was playing and told me ‘don’t expect much playing time;

coach doesn’t play Black people.’ That’s literally what he said. I was shocked. I

definitely felt a prejudice feeling toward Black players. That whole situation that I’ve

been through opened my eyes to like okay, here’s the racial issues in sport. I’m now

going through it. It opened my eyes and made me think, what else is going on and what

are they thinking when I’m in practice or when they’re making the starting lineup for the

game.

Paul explained how he eventually quit the team due to a lack of playing time. Paul’s experience

portrayed how discriminatory coaching practices can negatively impact the sport experience, to

the extent that athletes question their participation or withdraw from sport.


Ruth described the ableist mentality of interuniversity sport, which prevented her from

competing for her university despite being a Paralympic swimmer:

I was good enough to compete in Rio, but I’m not good enough to compete for my

university. I know that’s not true, but [university] doesn’t allow me to compete in

[national] competitions. It’s as if I’m getting punished for being disabled. My right to

compete is taken away from me because my able-bodied opponents have an apparent

advantage, even though I set standard…times in practice. It’s a very ableist culture.

[University] wants to show they’re forward thinking by taking someone like me on the

team, but its just able-bodied people telling disabled people what they can or can’t do

with their body.

In addition to being physically disabled, Danielle identified as queer and reported

experiencing various forms of exclusion due to her sexuality and physical ability:

Being non-binary was a thing I could never bring into sport…The devaluation of me as

an athlete because of being a para-athlete was high, but my form of disability was such

that I wasn’t going to be someone who was going to experience a lot of ableism relative

to my peers within the para-sport community. The difference with queerness was that I

wasn’t on a queer team. One example, it’s precisely when you don’t experience it that

you know it’s really bad. I can’t be involved in any of the Gay Games or Out Games

because there’s no place for someone of my embodiment to exist in those sporting

cultures. I can’t enter any queer building or establishment in my city. Not a single

one…There’s no gay bar for disabled people. In fact, disabled sport might be the closest

thing we have to it…You could say that disability has been less of a significant thing

because of that, but I would say it is more of a significant thing because there is an entire


realm of sport I can’t access even in a wheelchair. I don’t even get to experience the

microinvalidations because I can’t even enter the room.

By the inherent design of sport and the community, Danielle was automatically excluded from

participating in certain establishments or sport events because of her gender identification,

disability, and sexuality.

Overt and Covert Identities

The athletes expressed beliefs that their experiences of oppression were influenced by the

extent of (in)visibility of their identities. For example, Ruth explained, “It’s hard being a

Paralympic athlete and even harder if you’re female. I’m already looked at as weak or incapable,

whether that’s because I’m disabled or because I’m a woman is up for debate. I think it’s both.”

Similarly, Peter admitted to not publicly disclosing his sexuality until years after he retired from

sport; as a result, he competed in swimming with many perceiving him as a heterosexual male:

I could handle being gay and closeted as long as I had an ally I could speak with. I’m

speaking from a privileged, hidden place, but what if you can’t hide, what’s the

experience for a para-athlete or a Black athlete? People look at them and automatically

there are assumptions, doubts, accusations, fears. They can’t control people’s reactions. I

was able to until I came out. I was rejected by my family at first. I did lose a speaking

contract because I was gay. There were financial, human, professional, personal

relationship repercussions all around me by making that decision to speak out about who

I was…but I guess sport was safer for me when I competed because I could stay in the

closet.

Peter recognized that hiding his sexuality made participation in sport easier and accepts that

other under-represented identities that cannot be hidden, such as being Black, are more


susceptible to explicit and implicit forms of discrimination. For example, James, who is Black,

shared a story of overt racism that he endured after a game:

In February this year, my car was vandalized by somebody. To this day I don’t know who

did it. It was keyed and someone wrote nigger across my car. Someone had to know that

it was my car to write that. You don’t just go around writing nigger on anyone’s car.

Behind closed doors, it broke me down in a way where I was tired of having that boatload

on me. It’s hard being a Black athlete…it’s not as safe as being a White athlete. You’re

not favoured. The only reason you’re favoured is to entertain or perform but outside of

that, you’re not favoured.

The preceding example demonstrates how the colour of James’s skin placed him at increased risk

of certain types of prejudice behaviours. James admitted to the struggle of being a Black athlete

who consistently experienced discriminatory behaviours because the colour of his skin. Paul also

described an ongoing struggle with discrimination, as he expressed:

I feel like I have to prove myself as a human or as a person because I’m at a disadvantage

for being Black…it’s almost like I need to earn safe sport because I’m Black. So once

people accept me for my skin colour, then I can feel safe in sport…it’s probably the same

for Brown people, people in wheelchairs, or gay people too. We’re not easily accepted by

others so we need to prove ourselves and once we do, then we can benefit.

Paul continued, explaining how the predominantly White leadership of sport makes it difficult to

achieve any changes that benefit him as a Black man:

I think every sport has a leader that’s White. You have White people making rules for

people who don’t identify as White. How would a White person understand my struggle


as a Black man? How can a White person understand the prejudice of being sat because

of the colour of my skin? It’s hard for us, people need to understand that.

The Black athletes in particular raised questions about the relevance of safe sport and abilities to

experience it when White leaders are establishing safe sport descriptions and parameters.

Discussion

The current study explored the interpretations and experiences of safe sport from athletes

with under-represented identities. Contrary to the abuse prevention perspectives of safe sport that

tend to characterize the position advanced by many sport organizations (Kerr et al., 2020), the

current participants’ understandings of safe sport expanded beyond the prevention of physical,

sexual, or psychological abuse, to the development of fair, inclusive, accessible, and non-

discriminatory sport cultures. According to the participants, safe sport is an improbable and

idealistic concept that is not likely to be fully realized by these athletes because they are

discriminated against for how they identify. All the participants described experiencing verbal

and non-verbal acts of discrimination, and thus, considered their sport experiences to be unsafe.

Participants claimed that safe sport was relevant and attainable for athletes who appear to fit

within societal-normative identities (e.g., White, straight, male, able-bodied) more so than for

athletes from equity-deserving groups (e.g., Black, gay, female, and disabled). The perception

that safe sport is an inaccessible and unattainable standard of sport for these athletes may stem

from their experiences of racism, sexism, ableism, and homophobia in sport. The gay, Middle

Eastern, disabled, and Black athletes reported experiences of microaggressions, through

stereotypical assumptions based upon skin colour, ethnicity, gender, physical ability, and

sexuality. Microaggressions refer to frequent experiences and behaviours that reinforce

stereotypes, biases, forms of prejudices, and oppression (Strunk & Locke, 2019). Although


microaggressions are understood to be subtle, the cumulative, consistent, and pervasive nature of

these experiences can have a severe negative effect on the physical and psychological welfare of

individuals (Sue et al., 2007).

The interpretation of safe sport as unrealistic or unreachable may be influenced by the

culture of sport which has been characterized as patriarchal, heteronormative, discriminatory,

and abusive (David, 2005; Hunter, 2018; Lang & Hartill, 2015; Rhind & Owusu-Sekyere, 2018).

Historically, the social system of sport has systematically privileged White, heterosexual, cis-

gendered men at the expense of those who identify as a person of colour, female, or with the

LGBTQ community (Strunk & Locke, 2019). The findings from this study suggest similar forms

of privilege and segregation continue to exist in sport, consequently depriving athletes with

under-represented identities inclusive, accessible, rights-based opportunities of participating in

sport. Rather, frequent experiences of microaggressions may lead the participants to believe they

are not offered opportunities to reap the same benefits that have traditionally been afforded to

those with ‘normative’ identities (Adjepong, 2017).

The contemporary reproduction of historical narratives of hegemonic masculinity that

classify men as aggressive, competitive, able-bodied, and heterosexual (Anderson, 2005;

Messner, 1992) may alienate those who do not assumingly fit that profile. Wellard (2002)

acknowledges that sport participation is “dominated by a particular form of masculinity based on

competitiveness, aggression and elements of traditional understandings of the sporting male…”

(p. 235). Moreover, Dashper (2012) explains how “sport’s role as a ‘maker of men’ has been

facilitated by the exclusion of all things feminine and unmasculine, marginalizing, silencing and

frequently excluding gay men” (p. 1111). Assumptions pertaining to masculinity have created

unsafe experiences for the gay and Black athletes, alike. Based upon the literature, it seems the


male athletes’ skepticism of safe sport may stem from experiences of racial stereotyping

(microaggressions), the reinforcement of hypermasculine values, and widespread use of

homophobic terms that are prevalent in sport and consequently foster an environment of

intolerance and exclusion (Anderson 2002; 2005; Dashper, 2012; Lee et al., 2018), which has

been perceived as unsafe. There is an assumption that “Black men compete for faster times or

harder hits…Black athletes are often portrayed as violent men in heterosexualized sporting

spaces…Black athletes are thought to sweat, fuck, and fight…” (Anderson & McCormack, 2010,

p. 950). In comparison, gay athletes are often assumed to be White and feminized by their

participation in nonaggressive sports such as, swimming, gymnastics, cheerleading, running, ice

skating, and diving; gay athletes are often consumed by their aesthetics (Anderson &

McCormack, 2010). These assumptions reveal the embodiment of hegemonic perspectives of

race, sexuality, and masculinity in sport. Homosexuality in organized sport has become further

ridiculed through assumptions that all athletes are heterosexual and from the proliferation of

homophobic terms, such as ‘queer’, ‘pussy’, and ‘fag’ to criticize athletes who do not conform to

heteronormative masculine narratives (Dashper, 2012), which was reportedly experienced by the

two gay athletes who participated in this study. In comparison, presumptuous claims of

masculinity that assume Black athletes are naturally aggressive, strong, and innately capable of

jumping high and running fast (Bhana, 2008) has created an unsafe culture of sport characterized

by the normalized use of racial microaggressions. We speculate that coaches and athletes may

use racial microaggressions instrumentally to reinforce a brand of Black masculinity associated

with superior athletic abilities and thus, enhanced opportunities for winning and success.

Consequently, Black male athletes who are incapable of expressing this brand of masculinity are


subjected to experiencing exclusive forms of discrimination, such as sitting on the bench for not

playing as a male Black athlete is expected to play.

Individuals who identify with a disability must negotiate the relationship between social

constructions of disability, the body, and identity (Huang & Brittain, 2006). The two athletes

who identified with a disability admitted to experiencing microinvalidations and microassaults

from their coaches and teammates; consistent with the findings of DePauw and Gavron (2005),

the participants suggested their experiences of discrimination stem from societal and sport

assumptions that disabled participants are incapable, frail, and weak. The lived experiences of

(un)safe sport endured by the disabled participants reveal how medical discourses of disability

are controlled by the assumptions of able-bodied participants who impose a narrative of “cannot”

on disabled athletes (Huang & Brittain, 2006). Individuals with disabilities have been treated as

social inferiors due to society’s perception of disability being a tragic source of pity (DePauw,

1997; Swartz et al., 2018). This was apparent as both disabled participants lamented about being

ridiculed because of their disability, the lack of opportunities to participate in sport, and the

inability to acquire positions of leadership because able-bodied individuals declare they are unfit

or incapable. As such, the process of inclusion in the current sport landscape still reinforces a

narrative of “less than” or “unequal” when compared to able-bodied athletes (DePauw, 1997).

Perceptions of inferiority that label disabled athletes perpetuate existing concerns of

safeguarding disabled athletes in sport, which has been described as a novel phenomenon (Smith,

2015). The lack of awareness and understanding about how to advance safe sport for disabled

athletes may stem from stakeholders’ subconscious – or conscious – conformity to medical

discourses of disability and ableist interpretations of sport participation, which both contribute to

the disqualification of disabled athletes from (safe) sport. These behaviours take shape through


the active disregard of athletes through verbal acts of discrimination that reinforce “cannot”

culture for disabled participants, or the built-in forms of inaccessibility that exclude disabled

athletes from experiencing safe sport.

The intersectional oppression endured by participants with disabilities who also were

female or queer and non-binary reinforced narratives of weakness and inability, consequently

heightening their experiences of exclusion and alienation (Remedios & Snyder, 2018). Sport has

always been organized based upon binary categories of ability and gender, insofar that able-

bodied and disabled participants or men and women compete in separate leagues and certain

sports are characterized as being masculine or feminine (Davis, 2017). The separation between

men and women in sport is heightened by hegemonic masculine norms, misogynistic perceptions

of women in the media, and the implementation of different rules in sports for men and women

(e.g., women use a smaller basketball and there is no body checking in women’s hockey) (Flores

et al., 2020; Young & White, 2007). Moreover, the gender polarity between men and women in

sport are heighted through misogynistic representations of women in the media that depict

female athletes as the inferior gender or use feminine characteristics to insult male athletes

(Young & White, 2007) or gay male athletes. Adams (2007) explains that male athletes’

participation may confirm their sexual and gender identities; however, participation in sports

such as figure skating challenges these narratives by portraying men as effeminate and

presumably gay. Several other prejudice narratives exist that interfere with the safe sport

experiences of athletes with minority genders. For example, successful female athletes have had

their sexuality and femininity interrogated for not participating in ‘socially acceptable sports’

such as tennis or swimming (Zipp, 2011). Wright and Clarke (1999) acknowledge how the threat

of being identified as a lesbian “keeps heterosexual women in their place and lesbian women


closeted” (p. 239). Similarly, Ravel and Rail (2008) claim sport heterosexualizes men and

homosexualizes women, especially women participating in aggressive sports. Additionally,

sport’s focus on the gender disparity between men and women consequently disregards the

spectrum of identities one may identify with. For example, only recently have we seen increased

scholarly attention pertaining to the participation of transgender athletes (Anderson & Travers,

2017). As such, female athletes who display “masculine” characteristics, male or gay athletes

that participate in “feminine” sports, and the underrepresentation of alternative minority genders

in sport reveals how gender-normative stereotypes function to exclude participants from reaping

the benefits of accessible and inclusive safe sport.

The study was limited by having a small sample of participants representing various

equity-deserving groups (e.g., only two Black athletes, two gay athletes, one non-binary athlete,

etc.) Additionally, not every equity-deserving group was reflected in this study (e.g., transgender,

Indigenous). Finally, the study was limited to the perspectives of athletes, as opposed to the

perspectives from multiple stakeholder groups. Future safe sport research must consider the

perspectives of multiple stakeholders (e.g., administrators, coaches, researchers) from various

equity-deserving groups. Additionally, research should further explore the safe sport strategies

that can enhance the experiences of athletes with under-represented identities who frequently

experience acts of discrimination in sport.

Conclusions

This study explored the interpretations and experiences of safe sport of athletes with

under-represented identities. The participants believed the notion of safe sport should extend

beyond the common understanding as abuse prevention to include anti-discrimination as all the

participants reported experiences of verbal and non-verbal discrimination. Based upon these


experiences, these athletes questioned whether safe sport is realistic and attainable for equity-

deserving groups. Interestingly, those who had visible, non-normative identity characteristics

reportedly experienced more microaggressions and discrimination that those who could hide

their identities, thus making it more difficult to experience safe sport. The findings highlight the

importance of including anti-discrimination and inclusion measures in safe sport

conceptualizations, and prevention and intervention initiatives.

References

Adams, M. (2007). The manly history of a ‘girls’ sport’: Gender, class and the development

of nineteenth-century figure skating. International Journal of the History of Sport, 24(7),

872-893.

Adjepong, A. (2017). ‘We’re, like, a cute rugby team’: How whiteness and heterosexuality shape

women’s sense of belonging in rugby. International Review for the Sociology of Sport,

52(2), 209-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690215584092



Anderson, E. (2002). Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic

environment. Gender and Society 16(6), 850–77.

Anderson, E. (2005). Orthodox and inclusive masculinity: Competing masculinities among

heterosexual men in a feminized terrain. Sociological Perspectives 48(3), 337–55.

Anderson, E., & McCormack, M. (2010). Intersectionality, critical race theory, and American

sporting oppression: Examining black and gay male athletes. Journal of Homosexuality,

57, 949-967.

Anderson, E., & Travers, A. (2017). Transgender athletes in competitive sport. Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690215584092


Berry, K., Kowalski, K. C., Ferguson, L. J., & McHugh, T. F. (2010). An empirical

phenomenology of young adult women exercisers’ body self-compassion. Qualitative

Research in Sport and Exercise, 2(3), 293-312.

Bhana, D. (2008). ‘Six packs and big muscles, and stuff like that’. Primary school-aged South

African boys, black and white, on sport. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(1),

3-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690701728654

Biggerstaff, D., & Thompson, A. R. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): A

qualitative methodology of choice in healthcare research. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 5, 214-224.

Coaching Association of Canada (2020). Safe sport training. https://safesport.coach.ca/

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five

approaches. Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research. Sage Publications.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence

against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299.

Dashper, K. (2012). ‘Dressage is full of queens!’ Masculinity, sexuality and equestrian sport.

Sociology, 46(6), 1109-1124.



Davis, H. F. (2017). Beyond trans: Does gender matter? York University Press.

Dean, C., & Rowan, D. (2014). The social worker’s role in serving vulnerable athletes. Journal

of Social Work Practice, 28(2), 219-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2013.817987

https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690701728654


https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2013.817987


DePauw, K. P. (1997). The (in)visibility of disability: Cultural contexts and “sporting bodies”.

Quest, 49(4), 416-430.

DePauw, K. P., & Gavron, S. J. (2005). Disability sport. Human Kinetics.

DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical

Education, 40, 314-321.

Flores, A. R., Haider-Markel, D. P., Lewis, D. C., Miller, P. R., Tadlock, B. L., & Taylor, J. K.

(2020). Public attitudes about transgender participation in sports: The roles of gender,

gender identity conformity, and sports fandom. Sex Roles, 83, 382-398.



Global Water Futures. (2021). Equity, diversity, & inclusion: Global Water Futures: 2021-2023

draft strategy for consultation. Global Water Futures.

https://gwf.usask.ca/documents/gwf-edi-strategy-2021-2023_draft-for-consultation.pdf

Goodkind, J. R., & Deacon, Z. (2004). Methodological issues in conducting research with

refugee women: Principles for recognizing and re-centering the multiply marginalized.

Journal of Community Psychology, 32(6), 721–739. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20029



Haralambos, M. & Holborn, M. (2000). Sociology: Themes and perspectives. HarperCollins.

Hollway, W., Jefferson, T. (1997). Eliciting narrative through the in-depth interview. Qualitative

Inquiry, 3, 53–70.

Huang, C. J., & Brittain, I. (2006). Negotiating identities through disability sport. Sociology of

Sport Journal, 23, 352-375.

https://gwf.usask.ca/documents/gwf-edi-strategy-2021-2023_draft-for-consultation.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20029


Hunter, L. (2018). The long and short of (performance) surfing: Tightening patriarchal threads in

boardshorts and bikinis. Sport in Society, 21(9), 1382-1399.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2017.1388789

Hycner, R. H. (1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data.

Human Studies, 8, 279-303.

Jones, R. L. (2000). Toward a sociology of coaching. In R. L. Jones & K. M. Armour (Eds.),

The sociology of sport: Theory and practice. Addison Wesley Longman.




surveillance system. Sport Management Review, 23(1), 95-103.








pdf

Kilty, K. (2006). Women in coaching. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 222-234.

Lang, M., & Hartill, M. (2015). Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in Sport:

International perspectives in research, policy and practice. Routledge.

Larkin, M, & Thompson, A. R. (2012). Interpretative phenomenological analysis in mental

https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2017.1388789






health and psychotherapy research. In D. Harper & A. R. Thompson (Eds.), Qualitative

research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for student and

practitioners (pp. 101-116). John Wiley & Sons.

Lee, S., Bernstein, M. B., Etzel., E. F., Gearity, B. T., & Kuklick, C. R. (2018). Student-athletes’

experiences with racial microaggressions in sport: A Foucauldian discourse analysis. The

Qualitative Report, 23(5), 1016-1043.

Martin-Storey, A., Pollitt, A. M., & Baams, L. (2020). Profiles and predictors of dating violence

among sexual and gender minority adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 1-7.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.08.034

Messner M. A. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity. Beacon Press.

Miller, A. L., & Nakazawa, A. (2015). Who safeguards the child in Japanese sport? In M. Lang

& M. Hartill (Eds.), Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in Sport: International


Miller, K. E. (2009). ‘They light the Christmas tree in our town’. International Review for the

Sociology of Sport, 44(4), 363-380.


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, 1019-1029.








Moustakas, C., 1994. Phenomenological research methods. Sage.

Norman, L. (2011). Gendered homophobia in sport and coaching: Understanding the everyday

experiences of lesbian coaches. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 47(6),

705-723. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690211420487

Parson, L. (2019). Considering positionality: The ethics of conducting research with

marginalized groups. In K. K. Strunk & L. A. Locke (Eds.) Research methods for social

justice and equity in education (pp. 15-32). Palgrave Macmillan.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

Ravel, B., & Rail, G. (2008). From straight to gaie? Quebec sportswomen’s discursive

constructions of sexuality and destabilization of the linear coming out process. Journal of

Sport and Social Issues, 32, 4–23.

Remedios, J. D., & Snyder, S. H. (2018). Intersectional oppression: Multiple stigmatized

identities and perceptions of invisibility, discrimination, and stereotyping. Journal of

Social Issues, 74(2), 265-281.

Rhind, D., & Owusu-Sekyere, F. (2018). International safeguards for children in sport:


Safe Sport International (2019). Safe sport international principles.


Simien, E. M., Arinze, N., & McGarry, J. (2019). A portrait of marginality in sport and

education: Toward a theory of intersectionality and race-gendered experiences for black

female college athletes. Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy, 40(3), 409-427.


https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690211420487



Sloan, A., & Bowe, B. (2013). Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology: The

philosophy, the methodologies, and using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate

lecturers’ experiences of curriculum design. Quality & Quantity, 48(3), 1291-1303.

Smith, A. (2015). Safeguarding the welfare of disabled people in sport: Some policy issues and

considerations. In M. Lang & M. Hartill (Eds.), Safeguarding, Child Protection and

Abuse in Sport: International perspectives in research, policy and practice (pp. 153-162).

Routledge.

Smith, J. A. (2004). Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis

and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative

Research in Psychology, 1, 39-54.

Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis:

Theory, method, and research. Sage

Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2013). Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health:

From process to product. Routledge.

Strunk, K. K., & Locke, L. A. (2019). Research methods for social justice and equity in

education. Palgrave Macmillan.

Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., &

Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical

practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271-286.

Swartz, L., Bantjes, J., Knight, B., Wilmot, G., & Derman, W. (2018). “They don’t understand

that we also exist”: South African participants in competitive disability sport and the

politics of identity. Disability and Rehabilitation, 40(1), 35-41.

Tabron, L. A. (2019). I pulled up a seat at the table: My journey engaging in critical quantitative


inquiry. In K. K. Strunk & L. A. Locke (Eds.) Research methods for social justice and

equity in education (pp. 275-282). Palgrave Macmillan.

Tamminen, K. A., Holt, N. L., & Neely, K. C. (2013). Exploring adversity and the potential for

growth among elite female athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(1), 28-36.

University of Toronto. (2019). Inspiring inclusive excellence – Professor Wisdom Tettey’s

installation address. Inspiring Inclusive Excellence - Professor Wisdom Tettey's

installation address | University of Toronto Scarborough - News and Events (utoronto.ca)

US Center for SafeSport (2018). US center for safesport. https://uscenterforsafesport.org/

van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive

pedagogy. SUNY Press.





Waldron, J. J. (2016). It’s complicated: Negotiations and complexities of being a lesbian in sport.

Sex Roles, 74, 335-346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0521-x

Wellard, I. (2002). Men, sport, body performance and the maintenance of ‘exclusive

masculinity’. Leisure Studies, 21(3-4), 235-247.

Wright, J., & Clarke, G. (1999). Sport, the media and the construction of compulsory

heterosexuality: A case study of women's rugby union. International Review for the

Sociology of Sport, 34, 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/101269099034003001

Young, K., & White, P. (2007). Sport and gender in Canada (2nd ed.). Oxford.

Zipp, J. F. (2011). Sport and sexuality: Athletic Participation by sexual minority and sexual

https://utsc.utoronto.ca/news-events/inspiring-inclusive-excellence-professor-wisdom-tetteys-installation-address

https://utsc.utoronto.ca/news-events/inspiring-inclusive-excellence-professor-wisdom-tetteys-installation-address



https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0521-x

https://doi.org/10.1177/101269099034003001


majority adolescents in the U.S. Sex Roles, 64, 19-31.


176

CHAPTER FIVE: STUDY 3

Sport Administrators’ Perspectives on Advancing Safe Sport

This manuscript has been submitted for review to Frontiers in Sports and Active Living as

Gurgis, J., & Kerr, G. (in review). Sport Administrators’ Perspectives on Advancing Safe Sport.

Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. As first author, I contributed to the conceptualization of

the study (50%), data collection and analyses (100%), interpretation of the data (60%), and

writing of the manuscript (80%).


Abstract

Numerous international high-profile cases of athlete abuses have led to efforts to advance

what has been termed “Safe Sport.” Sport and coaching organisations are urgently designing and

implementing policies, procedures, and programmes to advance a culture of safe sport. However,

we posit that these endeavours are occurring without a conceptual framework about what

constitutes safe sport or how to achieve it. Without a consistent conceptual framework for safe

sport, prevention and intervention initiatives may not be fully realized. As such, the purpose of

the study was to explore sport administrators’ perspectives of how to advance safe sport. Given

the leadership position sport administrators hold, understanding their perspectives may be helpful

in informing a framework to guide the development and implementation of safe sport strategies.

Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted

with thirteen sport administrators from various sport and coaching organisations to elicit views

on how best to advance safe sport. The findings indicated that a multi-faceted approach

embracing several advancement strategies was reportedly essential for progressing safe sport.

Specifically, the sport administrators recommended that sport organisations establish a universal

framework of safe sport, design and implement education, implement and enforce policies,

establish independent monitoring and complaint mechanisms, and conduct research to ensure

advancement strategies are current and applicable. The participants suggested these advancement

strategies are necessary to evolve sport from a culture that embraces hegemonic masculine

narratives, interpersonal violence, and controlling coach-athlete relationships, to a culture of

sport that extends the safe sport focus beyond the prevention of harm to the promotion of

positive values and human rights. The findings were interpreted through a safeguarding lens to

propose a framework for achieving safeguarding sport, defined by the prevention of harm and

the promotion of positive values in sport.

Keywords: safe sport; safeguarding sport; sport administrators; education; policy; research;

monitoring; complaint mechanisms


Introduction

Various international high-profile cases of athlete abuses have led to efforts to advance

what has been termed “Safe Sport.” A substantial number of abuse scandals revealed

internationally in sport, including, the Nassar case in the US, and the Barry Bennell case in the

UK to name a few, have pressured sport to develop and enforce various safeguards (Nite &

Nauright, 2020). As such, many national and international sport and coaching organizations have

developed initiatives such as educational programmes and policies to advance a culture of safe

sport – one free from abuse and harassment. For example, Safe Sport International (Safe Sport

International, 2019), an international collaborative agency committed to the global eradication of

all types of abuse, harassment, and violence committed against athletes of any age, provides

current research, consulting services, and educational webinars to enhance safeguarding

measures amongst sport stakeholders and organizations. The Coaching Association of Canada

(2020), a national coaching body offering educational training and resources to support coach

development in Canada, offers a variety of training programmes and safety-based policies

focused on ethics, concussion awareness, and maltreatment. Several other organizations exist,

including the United States Center for SafeSport (2020), the Child Protection in Sport Unit in the

United Kingdom (2020), Play by the Rules (2020) in Australia, and the International Olympic

Committee (2020), all of which implement various approaches in attempts to advance safe sport.

These organizations vary in their roles and responsibilities with respect to safe sport, from

providing information and serving as an advocacy body only (e.g., Play by the Rules), to

addressing complaints of sexual abuse (e.g., US Center for SafeSport).

Despite the increased attention on safe sport initiatives in numerous countries around the

world, several challenges remain to advancing safe sport. First, there is an absence of a generally


accepted definition of safe sport or of a framework for understanding and advancing safe sport.

For example, the International Olympic Committee (2017) toolkit defines safe sport as

safeguarding from harassment and abuse, Safe Sport International (2019) refers to protecting the

welfare, safety and rights of all athletes, and the US Center for SafeSport (2020) refers to

building a sport community where participants can work and learn together free of emotional,

physical and sexual abuse and misconduct. Canada’s Sport for Life defined safe sport as the

provision of a “training and competitive environment for athletes, coaches, officials, and

volunteers that is free of abuse, harassment, and discrimination…Additionally, safety includes

the physical aspect of the equipment and training practices” (Higgs et al., 2019, p. 11). These

descriptions of safe sport highlight the variations in populations of interest – from athletes to all

sport participants – and in focus – from protection from harm to protection of rights.

Without a consistent framework for safe sport, it follows that policies, programmes, and

practices to advance safe sport will also vary. Kerr and Kerr (2020) offered a critique of the

various interventions that have been implemented internationally to address safe sport and

protect athletes from harm. As athlete maltreatment is a systemic issue requiring safeguarding

interventions from the individual to the organisational and societal levels (Kerr et al., 2019),

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) Bioecological Systems Theory was used to address safeguarding

strategies at each level of the theory. At the individual level, athletes’ knowledge and awareness

of safe sport-related topics are encouraged through the delivery of educational programmes. At

the microsystem level, codes of conduct and educational programmes for stakeholders such as

coaches and parents have been developed to enhance the interpersonal relationships between

athletes and other stakeholders and to improve the conditions of the environment. The

mesosystem, which focuses on the roles of organizations and institutions in positively


influencing the conduct of sport stakeholders, has been addressed through the implementation of

harassment and protection policies that preserve the physical and psychological welfare of

athletes. At the exosystem level, emphasis is placed on the development of organizations

responsible for and committed to advancing safe sport, such as US SafeSport. Finally, the

macrosystem level, which considers the national, international, and local policies, laws,

regulations, and sociocultural beliefs that are established to globally achieve safe sport, has been

pursued through advocacy efforts such as the International Olympic Committee’s Consensus

Statement on Abuse and Harassment (Mountjoy et al., 2016) and the accompanying toolkit (IOC,

2017). The authors also highlighted the current weaknesses of the sport system with respect to its

(in)ability to advance safe sport strategies at all levels of the model, including, for example: a

lack of conceptual clarity including inconsistent definitions and descriptions of unsafe behaviour;

educational programmes for athletes that are perceived as victim-blaming; policies that focus

primarily on sexual abuse and neglect more commonly experienced forms of maltreatment;

educational programmes that are not empirically or theoretically driven; ineffective monitoring

and evaluation of programmes; and difficulty disseminating programmes and information to a

community of volunteers. The authors proposed that the “autonomous, self-regulating nature” of

sport explains why sport is lagging in the area of child protection compared to other child-

populated domains and why so many athletes remain silent about their harmful experiences (Kerr

& Kerr, 2020, p. 98).

Many recommendations have been suggested to advance safe sport. For instance, Noble

and Vermillion (2014) proposed to prevent maltreatment in youth programs, “administrators and

leaders must develop and implement stringent policies and procedures placing the safety of their

youth participants as their main priority, and creating a culture of zero tolerance for any form of


abusive behavior” (p. 52). Mountjoy and colleagues (2016) suggested to eliminate abuse from

sport, “a systematic multiagency approach” that considers the design, implementation, and

evaluation of culturally-relevant, safe sport policies and procedures, education, and law

enforcement strategies is required (p. 1019). Furthermore, Mountjoy and colleagues (2015)

advised on “clearly defining inappropriate and violent behaviours in sport”, which may assist

with organizations adopting proper safeguards in sport (p. 885). Having a unified understanding

pertaining to what safeguards should be implemented by sport organisations may also ensure

there are consistent efforts to respond to unsafe practices. The International Safeguarding

Children in Sport Founders Group, comprised of over fifty organizations, developed the

International Safeguards for Children in Sport, including eight safeguards to protect children

participating in sport from harm: 1) developing policy; 2) designing procedures for responding to

safeguarding concerns; 3) provision of advice and support; 4) minimizing risks to children; 5)

identifying guidelines for behaviour; 6) recruiting, training, and communicating; 7) working with

partners; and 8) monitoring and evaluating (Mountjoy et al., 2015). The safeguards are meant to

“reflect international declarations, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,

relevant legislation, government guidance, existing child protection/safeguarding standards and

good practice” (Rhind & Owusu-Sekyere, 2020, p. 105). Furthermore, research that involved

ongoing interviews and group discussions with organisation leads, as well as continuous

feedback from the Founders Working Group, led to the creation of the ‘CHILDREN’ framework,

an acronym that stands for cultural sensitivity, holistic, incentives, leadership, dynamic,

resources, engaging stakeholders, and networks, which should be considered when implementing

the safeguards (Mountjoy et al., 2015).


At the 2019 National Safe Sport Summit, hosted by the Coaching Association of Canada,

current and retired national level athletes recommended a variety of strategies for advancing safe

sport. Recommendations included: address all forms of maltreatment (rather than exclusively

focusing on sexual misconduct); design and implement mandatory education for all sport

stakeholders; prohibit all sexual relations and forced acts of intimacy between athletes and

individuals in positions of power, such as coaches and support staff; increase the focus on

athletes’ holistic well-being; strengthen accountability measures; provide support and resources

to victims of maltreatment, and implement an independent regulatory body to investigate,

respond to and adjudicate complaints and apply sanctions (Kerr et al., 2020, p. 76). At the time

of writing this paper, Canada awaits a decision on an independent mechanism to address

concerns of athlete maltreatment, and only then will we know whether athletes’

recommendations have been heeded.

Previous researchers have recommended that ensuring safe sport is the responsibility of

all adults in the sport (Brackenridge, 2001; Kerr et al., 2019), and it may be argued that sport

administrators hold a particularly important position of influence. Sport administrators have

positions of power and authority over the operations of the organization, including funding

allocations, staffing decisions, implementation of policy and procedures, risk management and

legal issues, and accountability. Moreover, sport administrators have significant influence on the

culture of the organization by infusing values and priorities through communications, decision-

making, and implementation of policies; the sport administrator can determine whether the

organizational climate is one that prioritizes safe sport or performance excellence or revenue

generation, as some examples. Given the responsibilities of sport administrators to set the tone of

their organization including which priorities are established and operationalized, monitored and


evaluated, it is important to understand sport administrators’ views on what is needed to advance

safe sport. As such, the following study sought to understand sport administrators’ perspectives

of how to advance safe sport. Understanding sport administrators’ perspectives may be helpful in

informing a framework to guide the development and implementation of safe sport strategies.

Materials and Methods


This study adopts a constructivist paradigmatic position to further understand the

perspectives of sport administrators regarding the advancement of safe sport. Constructivism

upholds an interpretative worldview that advances the notion that reality is actively created by

individual interactions with society and the environment (Campbell, 2002; Kukla, 2000;

Rapmund, 1999), and in this way, interpretations of reality are culturally and socially influenced

(Rapmund, 1999). A constructivist approach to conducting research with sport stakeholders, such

as administrators, can illuminate the practicality of theoretical knowledge facilitating learning

through the sharing of knowledge and experiences (Mesquita et al., 2014). The conceptualization

of strategies to advance safe sport was a codependent process facilitated by the negotiation of

various topics between the participants and researchers.

Ontology

Research positioned within a constructivist paradigm embraces a relativist ontology

(Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Lincoln et al., 2011). A relativist ontology posits that realities may be

understood as several, imperceptible “mental constructions” that are constructed “experientially”

and co-constructed “socially” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 110). A relativist ontology suggests that

administrators’ awareness of strategies to achieve safe sport is formulated through negotiated


interactions with other stakeholders, the researchers, and the environment in which they are

immersed.

Epistemology

A constructivist paradigm assumes a transactional, subjectivist epistemology. Guba and

Lincoln (1994) reported that the researcher and researched “are assumed to be interactively

linked so that the ‘findings’ are literally created as the investigation proceeds” (p. 111).

Moreover, subjectivism acknowledges that separation “between the knower and the known”

cannot exist “because all knowledge is constructed through a meaning making process in the

mind of the knower” (Daly, 2007, p. 23). The epistemological assumptions of this study consider

that administrators’ knowledge of safe sport strategies is created through the recollection of prior

safe-related experiences, personal experiences, and through social interactions with other

stakeholders and the researcher, which may dissuade or encourage various safe sport practices.

Methodology

The following study utilized a grounded theory methodology to investigate the various

strategies that can be implemented to advance safe sport. Grounded theory is defined as an

inductive, methodical, and comparative style of conducting research for the purpose of theory

development (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007). Researchers engage in an iterative process of

transitioning between empirical data and emerging analysis; this process ensures data analysis

becomes increasingly more focused and theoretical (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007). Grounded theory

research has been characterized with the following criteria: concurrent data collection and

analysis, inductively developing analytic codes/categories, reliance on the constant comparison

method, evolving theory throughout each stage of data collection/analysis, memo-writing, and

theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2006; Kenny & Fourie, 2015). Specifically, this study embraces


the theoretical approach of constructivist grounded theory method (CGTM). A CGTM is an

interpretative strand of grounded theory methodology that “recognize[s] the existence of multiple

realities, treat data as mutually constructed between themselves and participants, and see their

analyses as constructions of reality” (Belgrave & Seide, 2019, p. 301). Charmaz, known for

advancing the CGTM, suggested this approach prioritizes the phenomena of interest and

interprets the data and analysis as being co-created through shared relationships and experiences

between participants and other sources of data gathered from their surrounding environment

(Charmaz, 2006). A CGTM acknowledges the interpretive nature of developing theory; this

process encourages the researcher to be reflexive, flexible, and creative in theorizing data that

interprets participants’ experiences and knowledge (Charmaz, 2006).

Methods

Participants

The following study sought to understand sport administrators’ perspectives of advancing

safe sport. Thirteen sport administrators who held leadership positions within national and

international sport and coaching organisations were recruited to share their views on how best to

achieve safe sport.

Rationale for Participant Inclusion. Sport administrators are at the forefront of

designing and enforcing strategies that promote safe sport. Daube and Thomas (2016)

acknowledged the social responsibility of sport administrators to monitor organizational

behaviour and promote sport codes that protect athletes and promote healthy behaviours. Further,

given the limited understanding of the structural and social mechanisms in sport organisations

through which athlete maltreatment is enabled and normalized (Roberts et al., 2020), it seemed


critical to speak with sport administrators to understand their views on how to best respond to

and mitigate the risks associated with unsafe and violent practices in sport.

Confidentiality of Participants. To preserve confidentiality, a pseudonym has been

assigned to each participant. Sport administrators are referred to as “SA”; to further distinguish

between participants, they have also been assigned a numerical value. For example, SA1, SA2,

etc.

Measures

Data Collection. The dialectical and interpretative nature of CGTM welcomes methods

that elicit open dialogue. The following study included the use of in-depth semi-structured

interviews. Although an interview guide was prepared in advance, we allowed space for

unanticipated directions to the questions and responses. Charmaz (2006) advocated for using in-

depth interviews to intimately explore the meanings participants attach to their shared

experiences. To understand the various ways in which we can advance safe sport, administrators

were asked questions such as: “What strategies would you implement to achieve safe sport?”,

“What are the barriers to advancing safe sport?” and “What facilitators are required to advance

safe sport?” Several probes were used, such as “Please tell me more about that”, “Can you

provide me with an example?”, and “What were the positive and negative implications of that

safe sport initiative?” The interviews ranged between 45 and 120 minutes; all interviews were

audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Procedures

Recruitment. Multiple sampling procedures are considered when recruiting participants

for grounded theory research. The initial stages of the study relied on convenience sampling;

participants who were accessible to the researcher and satisfied the participant criteria were


asked to participate in the study. Morse (2007) suggested the early phases of sampling aid in

defining the scope, boundaries, and trajectory of the study and research process. After

preliminary data analysis, purposeful sampling was utilized to find participants who fell along

the trajectory of the study (Jones et al., 2014). In the later stages of research, theoretical sampling

is employed; this approach seeks to collect relevant data through participants who are believed to

contribute to the elaboration, development, and refinement of emerging theory (Charmaz, 2006).

For this project, participants were limited to those who met the age of consent and were affiliated

with sport through the role of an administrator.

Data Analysis. Constant comparisons and memo-writing are often relied upon when

analyzing data in grounded theory research. Charmaz (2006) defined the constant comparative

method as:

A method of analysis that generates successively more abstract concepts and theories

through inductive processes of comparing data with data, data with category, category

with category, and category with concept. Comparisons then constitute each stage of

analytic development. (p. 187)

At each stage of analysis, constant comparisons were made as part of the coding process. A

CGTM includes two main phases of coding – initial and focused – followed by a process of

theoretical coding (Charmaz, 2006). During initial coding, we thoroughly read through the

transcript data line-by-line (Jones et al., 2014) and answered the questions, “What are these data

a study of?” and “What do the data suggest?” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 47); answering these questions

assisted in the naming of initial codes. Next, we engaged in a process of focused coding, which

permitted us to develop more selective, directed, and abstract codes (Charmaz, 2006). In this

stage of analysis, focused codes develop into theoretically rich and integrative categories (Jones


et al., 2014). The final theoretical codes depict potential relationships between categories of

codes developed through focused coding (Charmaz, 2006). The grounded theory that emerges

from the data is founded on the formation of the integrative theoretical codes (Charmaz, 2006;

Jones et al., 2014).

Lastly, analysis occurred through a process of memo-writing, “… the fundamental

process of researcher/data engagement that results in a ‘grounded’ theory’” (Lempert, 2007, p.

245). Memos were written with an analytical, rather than a descriptive mindset (Jones et al.,

2014). As the analysis progressed, many literary resources were examined so that the theoretical

underpinnings of other research could aid in identifying patterns within our dataset (Lempert,

2007).

Ethical Considerations. Prior to participating in any study, participants were required to

provide informed consent. A detailed letter of information and consent form was provided to

each administrator highlighting their rights as participants and the risks of participating in the

study. Participant confidentiality was assured given the social risks associated with portraying

participants negatively or the disclosing of information that may jeopardize their public image or

position or the reputation of the organisation they lead. To preserve confidentiality, all

participants were assigned a pseudonym and any personal identifiable information was omitted

from the study.

Results

The following study sought to understand sport administrators’ perceptions of how to advance

safe sport. Recommendations made by the sport administrators included constructing a universal

framework of safe sport for all sport organisations to adopt, the development of safe sport

education, policy implementation and enforcement, the establishment of independent monitoring


and complaint mechanisms, and ongoing research to support the development and refinement of

safe sport policies and procedures. The sport administrators perceived these strategies as

essential in shifting the culture of sport towards one that is committed to the prevention of harm

and values-based.

Recommendations for Advancing Safe Sport

The subsequent sections elaborate on the sport administrators’ recommendations for

advancing safe sport.

Advancing Safe Sport through an Established Framework of Safe Sport

Several participants claimed that the absence of a universal understanding and definition

of safe sport weakens efforts to advance it. As such, participants recommended that to advance

safe sport, there must first be a unified understanding of what safe sport is, as highlighted by

SA2, “I think that there is a need for a [safe sport] framework that would apply to all sport, so we

understand what exactly we’re all talking about.” SA9 acknowledged the importance of having

one, consistent definition because the varying interpretations of safety in sport have made it

difficult to advance a culture of safety:

Safe sport was originally focusing on preventing abuse, but now it has expanded to

include so many other factors. Is the exclusion of trans-athletes a safe sport topic? Does

the inaccessibility at arenas represent a safe sport issue? I would say yes, but that’s not

the common stance held by my peers…I agree, I do think we need a unified definition. It

provides us [administrators] direction with what is needed to improve safety in sport.

SA9 recognized the significant developments of safe sport from its origins of preventing physical

and psychological harm; consequently, it has become increasingly difficult for administrators to


advance safe sport because the topics included are ever-changing. SA11 also expressed the need

for a consistent definition of unacceptable conduct across all sports:

The idea of sport, very generally, is flawed. Within the greater scheme of sport, you have

multiple sports that have their own system of right and wrong. So, [ice] hockey tells you

it’s okay to drop the gloves to settle an issue, but volleyball says otherwise. So, what does

my kid learn when he’s in a conflict? It’s okay to use your fists or your words to resolve

it. That’s nonsense. You can’t have millions of policies and programmes that define

safety differently from sport to sport because they’ll all at some point end up

contradicting each other and we won’t ever actually achieve safety. Every sport needs to

be consistent. Violence is wrong, abuse is wrong, these are the repercussions. When

individual sports start to align their stance on safety, sport as a whole will start to

eliminate these broader issues of abuse and so on. (SA11)

Similarly, SA10 stated:

I don’t think there’s one definition of safe sport, and that’s the problem…It’s a

continuous type of work that identifies different issues that can hurt an athlete, hinder

development, or enjoyment of sport. With so many issues in sport we’ve developed so

many definitions, so how do we help anyone if our understanding is continuously

broadening?

The participants referred to the changing field of safe sport as presenting continuous challenges;

as administrators commit to making sport safer, they need to explore the issues that contribute to

an unsafe environment in an ongoing way. SA12 agreed that a unified philosophy of safe sport is

required, and, like other participants, suggested that safe sport should include the reduction of


physical and psychological harm or unsafe practices and also extend to include the benefits of

sport participation:

I think there’s a tendency to go to the headlines and to the problematic behaviours and for

sure there is a need to prevent those behaviours so that has got to be a major area of

focus, but I think it really limits the impact of the whole safe sport concept if it doesn’t

describe those benefits and the positive things that come out of sport. I think part of

what’s missing in a lot of cases is the lack of a clear philosophy of sport or a philosophy

of athlete-centred sport…we need that universal philosophy of safe sport which isn’t all

about the negatives. It’s about the positives, the benefits, and the reasons why we do this

and the importance of being athlete-centred. I think that’s something that’s missing.

SA12 acknowledged the importance of identifying the problematic behaviours prevalent in sport;

however, recommended advancing a universal philosophy of safe sport that extends beyond

harm-based definitions and focuses on the benefits of sport and the promotion of athlete-centred

values.

Advancing Safe Sport through Education

All participants agreed that offering education around safe sport was integral to creating a

physically and psychologically safe environment for all participants. According to SA10, “The

answer is education. I think we need to spend much, much more time educating…I think

everybody needs to be educated and everybody needs to comply with safe sport requirements.”

Whereas most safe sport education targets coaches, SA10 suggested that additional education be

developed and made compulsory for all participants in sport. For many other participants,

education was often recommended solely for coaches:


I think part of the challenge with the coaches is to educate them on the harm that they are

doing to the individual on the emotional, psychological, and physical level that is

detrimental long-term. To make them understand that whatever they learned as young

athletes themselves or whatever they witnessed and thought that’s how you make people

suffer or whatever that it is causing very serious harm and it is not as effective in getting

the result they are after because to be more positive, to be more supportive, to allow for

more enjoyment of the sport, all those things will actually elicit much greater

performances from the athletes…The education part is really important. Letting them

know that these kinds of activities constitute physical or psychological harm…Education

about these things is really important first and foremost because some of these definitions

of abuse are going to challenge people’s view of what they felt was acceptable and

normal coaching techniques. (SA2)

SA12 further supported the notion that coaches need education to encourage self-examination

and reflection:

I think education programmes are important for coaches to better analyse their own

behaviours and realize what some of the problems are and what some of the things are

that they can do to manage the problems…programmes that encourage self-reflection

allow some of these coaches to realize how problematic their behaviours are.

SA12 elaborated on the importance of safe sport education to move beyond awareness-raising to

address ways of facilitating behaviour change:

I do think the education programmes don’t go far enough. I think they convey

information but they’re not going to the point of really achieving behavioural change.


There is far more work that has to be done in terms of learning and supporting coaches in

the environment to really bring about behavioral change.

Numerous educational topics were recommended by administrators to be included in safe

sport education, including “policy, prevention, about different types of misuse of power,

education about how to report and when to report” (SA10). SA1 suggested topics related to “all

the ‘-isms’ should be addressed [in safe sport education] – racism, ableism, sexism, classism,

ageism. Anytime someone is discriminated against that produces an unsafe experience. People

need to know that.” SA5 acknowledged the growing concern of mental health issues and the

importance of educating coaches on how to recognize these issues:

Coaching today has to change given the mental health issues. For example, say they have

a student-athlete with significant mental health issues on their team, coaches typically

don’t know how to deal with that type of athlete…the coaches often don’t know what’s

going on with the athlete. The athlete may be in a better situation to take time off the

sport to get mentally better, but they don’t want to, and they end up staying with the

team. The coaches don’t know how to deal with that situation, they assume the player

isn’t strong enough to play and end up cutting them. Well, that creates more mental

health issues. It can be dangerous. It is a really complex issue. The coaches are struggling

with how to deal with that and need to be informed. It impacts the team dynamic,

performance, and can be mentally unsafe for athletes.

Finally, a few participants recommended that safe sport education address the positive side of

sport. SA13 explained, “we focus a lot on the terrible things happening in sport and not enough

on the good that can come from sport. If we educate others on the positives, then maybe that


becomes the new norm.” Similarly, SA9 suggested safe sport education that is values-based

would enable the safe sport movement to thrive:

These conversations about safe sport, they’re very reactive. We’ve had terrible acts of

abuse that have tainted the image of sport and now everyone is frantically creating

education, policies, presentations, you name it, to increase people’s awareness about the

dangers of sport. Now, whenever you think safe sport, you think of child sexual abuse or

harassment. We should be focusing on reminding people about the good in sport because

let’s face it, you would be a fool to continue to participate in sport after hearing about

safe sport. Safe sport is abuse? Safe sport is harmful? Safe sport is dangerous? Yeah, no

thank you. Instead, safe sport is healthy? Safe sport is fun? Safe sport is fair? Yup, I’ll

take that. Safe sport would thrive if we thought that way because people want to be part

of the solution, not the problem. They want to identify with something positive, not

negative.

Both SA13 and SA9 recognized the limitations of safe sport education that focuses solely on the

prevention and reduction of harm and the value of positioning safe sport education to promote

the positive values of healthy, fair, and safe sport experiences.

Advancing Safe Sport through Policy Implementation and Enforcement

Many sport administrators acknowledged the importance of policies to foster a safe sport

environment; however, the benefits of this advancement strategy were reportedly contingent on

several factors. First, participants emphasized that policies need to clearly define unsafe conduct

and consequences for breaching policies. For example, SA7 described the policies defining

unacceptable behaviour and related consequences that coaches are expected to adhere to:


There is zero tolerance for abuse, sexual assault or harassment, some statements about

drugs and alcohol, abuse of power and abuse of players or officials. There is a whole

series of them. We’ve developed automatic sanction charts for all our league sports, so

coaches and athletes know that there is no grey area. You do this, this is your suspension

or suspension and fine or suspension and fine and review. They can actually lose their

privilege of playing for us this season.

The clear delineation of consequences appears to give safe sport policies traction. Additional

consequences were suggested in response to violating policies. For example, SA13 advised on

cutting funding from sport programmes or organisations that fail to comply with policies:

“consequences of not being compliant, probably withholding funding, seems to crack the whip in

sport in Canada.” In the absence of consequences, participants believed that policies are rendered

useless. SA13 continued:

You can have a nice policy document but if no one ever actually checks on whether you

are abiding by it and there are no consequences as a result of a breaching that code of

conduct, then it might as well not be there.

Participants identified weaknesses in the enforcement of existing policies as well:

I think enforcement of policies is quite weak because coaching isn’t a profession and it

isn’t a regulated activity. Whatever policies are put in place tend to be dependent on

goodwill not on a real enforcement mechanism so people can avoid a lot of the policies if

they choose to. So, I think there is work that needs to be done on enforcement and

regulation. (SA12)

SA1 reinforced the notion that for policies to be effective, they need to be linked with

enforcement processes:


Policies are great. They don’t do anything in and of themselves. It has to be policies with

implementation plans…I don’t think it’s a strength in our sport system. I think policies

are checkboxes for our funders. Some organisations are great at taking these policies and

bringing them to life. I do think organisations need help also with the implementation.

The perception that policies are mere “checkboxes” for sport organisations suggests that in the

absence of enforcement strategies, safe sport policies are ineffective.

Advancing Safe Sport through Independent Monitoring and Complaint Mechanisms

Participants recommended advancing safe sport through the development of an unbiased,

centralized, independent body, separate from the sport organisation, that would be responsible

for conducting investigations on complaints of safe sport-related issues. SA13 stated:

I think a truly neutral system that involves reporting, like a triage investigating

mechanism that could also refer third-party support services that are not just to handle

that complaint. If there are mental health resources that are necessary, child protection

etc.…There is a bit of a web that happens depending on what that triage looks like but the

investigation that ensues that is fully independent and coming from a third-party and then

ultimately a tribunal or adjudication type process that can actually look and potentially

sanction individuals or parties for noncompliance.

SA13 continued:

I think it needs to be a fully independent neutral third-party mechanism that will

uniformly enforce the code and make sure that organisations are compliant with it, that

everybody has the same expectations and understandings and then oversee any kind of

investigation that happens as a result of any kind of breach or report and then potentially

have actual discipline proceedings or be able to force sanctions.


According to the participants, the development of an independent body not only ensures reports

are handled impartially but allows for specific sanctions to be placed on non-compliant sport

programmes and organisations. SA10 expressed:

I think its crucially important to have a centralized body that deals with [safe sport]…We

want medals, we want trophies, we want prize money. I think the next step is making sure

that this comes second after making sure that everybody is safe…having a centre

focusing on safety would be best.

Similarly, SA1 recommended having external third parties to police stakeholders in sport and

hold them accountable for their actions:

The idea of third parties and external parties, I think is really relevant. I personally

advocate for the idea of having an independent body...The accessibility of other supports

and other observers or whatever the right term is or an independent officer to be there. I

think the trick being that they have a policing role sort of to speak…I think it holds

people accountable.

SA7 agreed that the behaviours of coaches should be monitored as a way of advancing safe

sport: “If you are worried about safe sport and how coaches communicate with athletes and deal

with mental and physical and emotional abuse, why is there no observation level? Why are we

not observing coaches in the training setting?”

Participants recognized how sport organisations may be ill-equipped to investigate

reports of harm and thus, intervention from an independent third-party may relieve sport

administrators of tasks they are unfit to execute. SA13 explained:

I think what the messaging should be for national sport organisations is that an

independent body will take actually like a lot of issues off their hands too…I know


national sport organisations like [Canadian sport organisation] say that they don’t want to

deal with those issues. They want an independent third-party to deal with these issues.

They don’t want the liability. They know they are not specialized or capable. They are

very happy to say, ‘please independent third-party step in and investigate and tell us what

to do here.’

SA13 acknowledged how it would be legally wise for sport organisations to consider the aid of

an independent third-party. Similarly, SA9 agreed that an independent body would be beneficial

to support sport organisations who often seem unqualified to effectively investigate cases of

abuse:

I think the increased media attention on sexual abuse has pressured organisations to step

up when it comes to responding to cases of abuse. And yes, many organisations have not

been fully transparent, but for many others it’s a capacity issue. We don’t have the

support, resources, funding, time to investigate every report of abuse…I’m also not

qualified to respond to these issues, and neither are many others on my team. We’re

volunteers. We are qualified in other ways…definitely, I think it would be advantageous

for an independent body to be established in sport. They can focus on that aspect of sport

and we can continue to focus on ours.

In addition to not being qualified, SA1 acknowledged that internal investigations of abuse are

often unworkable due to limited sources of support; as such, it would be beneficial for sport to

establish an independent system to investigate reports of abuse.


Advancing Safe Sport through Research

Although not as prominent as the other recommended strategies, a few participants

understood the importance of research informing the advancement of current safe sport

strategies. SA4 stated:

Quality education needs to do a better job of being more responsive to research so we can

do a better job of keeping materials, trainers and learning facilitators up to date. The

whole reason we are doing this is so that participants of all ages are getting the best

experience. We need to ensure that they have the best material being taught to them or

being shown to them or learn from so that the athletes are getting the most quality

experience. I would say the one thing is becoming more responsive to the changing of

research and times.

Similarly, SA1 highlighted the importance of research:

The research and evidence in this area is extremely important to us. If I don’t have

evidence to back things up, I can’t say it. I can talk anecdotally. I can say this is logical

but having the ability to look at…research and say abuse and harassment is gendered. We

know in society violence against women is manifesting in sport and we actually have

evidence of that. What do we think of that then? We can have a conversation then. We

can create policies that achieve real change because we understand the evidence driving

those policies.

Finally, it was recognized that further research is required to improve the current reporting

mechanisms in place within Canadian sport:

There’s been countless failed attempts by organisations trying to respond to reports of

abuse. An independent reporting system would make the most sense for athletes, but the


logistics of it need to be explored further. I think the research will really justify to

organisations why this is an important step in the field. It’s not to expose the organisation

of wrongdoing, but really aid sport organisations in fully embracing safe sport and protect

athletes. (SA13)

Shifting Towards a Safe Sport Culture

The participants’ perceived their recommendations as necessary to stimulate a cultural

shift in sport. Specifically, the establishment of a universal framework, development of safe sport

education, implementation and enforcement of policies, the provision of independent complaint

mechanisms, and ongoing research are believed to be fundamental to challenging the current

sport culture in which harmful behaviours are normalized. For example, SA10 highlighted the

need for a cultural shift and cited the current culture as a barrier to achieving safe sport:

I think the main reason is cultural. You know what they call ‘old school’? I hate this

word. I’ve heard it so many times. It’s resistance to change because people think the way

they did it is best…there’s lots of good coaches…They got individuals to the Olympics,

they got gold medals, but that doesn’t mean that’s the right way to do it. They come and

tell you, ‘Well don’t tell me how to behave. I have five individuals from my career that

went to Summer Olympics. Who are you to tell me how to coach my athlete?’ I think the

resistance is from that old school type of education. It’s realizing that you can still

achieve the same or better results, which we know by research already, without applying

those techniques. And once you apply those [old] techniques, the athlete might win a

medal, but you scar them for the rest of their life.


According to SA10, education is integral to advance a culture of sport that moves beyond the

traditional style of controlling coaching. SA11 alluded to the controlling culture of sport as well

and suggested that the control stems from the military and hypermasculine roots of sport:

I think that the culture, the background of sport coming from a military tradition and

male-dominated area, it’s been one of the areas that has been the slowest to change. It’s

really been going from a master to the athlete and then a lot of the athletes are getting into

coaching and they’re just repeating their own experience. The culture is lagging behind in

a lot of changes…it’s hard to educate and change.

A cultural shift was also identified as being important given the evidence of the oppressive

culture, specifically towards women and individuals who identify with the LGBTQ community:

People are targeted with homophobic slurs as a way of trying to keep them in their place

and minimize their power. This was as much reflected in sport and perhaps more because

it’s a hypermasculine space or has been traditionally more than other areas in society and

so as research has shown…women in sport have been significantly impacted by

harassment and discrimination and overall a culture of oppression where they don’t feel

like they belong…anecdotally we hear a lot from women about practices and precedence

and attitude that would reflect a lot of hostility towards women’s involvement or the

women’s involvement being tolerated to a certain point and certain women’s involvement

is seen less acceptable than others…it does create an atmosphere for many women where

they are made to feel that they are unwelcomed and certainly some say discriminated

against in sport.

According to the participants, the current culture of sport must shift away from being oppressive,

hypermasculine, violent, autocratic, and discriminatory.


The participants used several descriptors to articulate what they envisioned to be the

outcomes of successfully advancing safe sport through the recommended strategies. Specifically,

participants referred to values such as ethical, open, respectful, welcoming, accepting, fair, fun,

safe, inclusive, equal, empowering, holistic, humane, and free, to describe what safe sport would

look like if a cultural shift is successfully achieved. For example, SA2 suggested several values

that are foundational to real safe sport experiences:

A true safe sport experience would demonstrate sport principles of safety, respect,

fairness, fun, inclusion…when those values are being promoted, highlighted, supported

by the sport organisation, there is going to be less chance of us being involved in unsafe

practices.

SA2 elaborated:

If sport organisations at the community level, up to the national level, are ensuring that

the sport experience they provide is driven by sport principles of safety, respect, fairness,

fun, inclusion, then there is going to be less chance of us being involved in unsafe

practices and an increased chance of us transforming sport into an endeavour that

prioritizes the safety and needs of athletes. People in the sport sector need to be reminded

of these positive values.

SA2 also recognized the potential for safe sport to build communities and strengthen the national

sport identity:

Safe sport experiences could prevent the bad things from happening but can also promote

the good. It will help instill character in our kids, it will strengthen our communities,

sport organisations and neighbours will come together with their kids in sport,

relationships will be built, social capital will be built, and many positive things will come


from that…it will increase the base of participation in sport, it will increase the likelihood

of creating greater excellence in sport and so on the world stage, we would have more

athletes representing Canada. That’s why a good sport experience or a safe sport

experience is so important because it maximizes those positive benefits.

Inclusion was referred to by participants as an aspect of safe sport. As an example, SA1

described safe sport policies better supporting transgendered athletes:

As we have come to understand gender identity and the sport model of you’re either male

or female based on your physical anatomy, we know that doesn’t really explain the

human condition, so we have helped develop policy in place for sport to use to make their

sport more safe and welcoming for trans persons…it is about the safety of those

individuals so that they can participate in sport in a safe and welcoming way and not be

subject to any kind of discrimination or bullying or harassment based on their gender

identity.

An ideal safe sport environment is an inclusive one – one in which inclusion expands beyond the

acceptance of participants with distinct gender identities to include participants with varying

abilities:

Access should be a fundamental right but because it’s not built into a lot of our culture

and behaviours, there are a lot of barriers. I think a lot of our Para-athletes end up

normalizing that some of the stuff they experience a lack of access to is okay. To make it,

whether it is dealing with their disability and/or the lack of environment that is

supportive, they need to work twice as hard…Do I think some of the information is

readily available to our coaches? No…It just hasn’t been part of the safe sport


conversation, but it should be because without it, you end up losing out on some great

athletes. (SA3)

SA3 continued, explaining that an ideal safe sport environment would extend beyond the

prevention of harm to fostering a quality environment, defined as accessible, welcoming, and

inclusive:

Safe has a really basic, very minimalist view in my opinion for what we should be

looking for…One of my concerns in a lot of this safe sport work is that it’s very gap or

issue oriented and for me, a safe, welcoming and inclusive system is way more than the

absence of these issues. Right now, it feels like a lot of our strategies are focused on the

reduction of harm or filling in the gaps as identifying with these areas and I am thinking

okay, but it’s like performance. It will neutralize it. It might stop it but it’s kind of flat

line...I think that’s where some of the discussion needs to go so people understand the

importance of these processes in creating an accessible and inclusive quality environment

for all.

Discussion

The findings of the study suggest that sport administrators believe a number of strategies

to advance a culture of safe sport are needed, including establishing a universal framework,

developing safe sport education for all, implementing and ensuring compliance with policies,

creating independent monitoring and complaint mechanisms, and researching safe sport to ensure

current programmes, policies, and procedures are relevant. Additionally, the findings indicate

that the effective implementation of these advancement strategies are perceived as fundamental

to ensuring a needed cultural shift in sport, one that is characterized by the achievement of ideal,

safe sport-related outcomes such as inclusion, accessibility, fairness, safety, and human rights.


Interestingly, the strategies offered by the sport administrators already exist to varying

degrees within the current landscape of safe sport. Many sport organisations previously

mentioned, such as the Coaching Association of Canada (2020), the International Olympic

Committee (2017), the US Center for SafeSport (2020) and the UK Child Protection in Sport

Unit (2020) have developed safe sport education addressing a range of topics, implemented safe

sport policies focusing on the prevention of harm, established various reporting measures in

response to abuse, and referenced safe sport-related research in their programmes and materials.

Furthermore, the recommendations made by sport administrators are consistent with Noble and

Vermillion’s (2014) findings that sport administrators recognize the importance of implementing

policies on reporting maltreatment and ensuring employees receive adequate training that

enhances their awareness of different types of abuse that manifest in sport. Wurtele (2012)

further supports that participation in education is critical in preventing youth maltreatment and

may influence positive changes in organisational culture insofar that administrators recommend

and advance policies and procedures to enhance the safety of young and vulnerable participants.

The findings of the current study also align with suggestions made by Mountjoy and colleagues

(2015; 2016) to establish a framework to better protect athletes in sport and to advance policies

and education. Specifically, the sport administrators in the current study acknowledge that

clearly defining safe sport-related behaviours will aid sport organisations in understanding which

safeguards are most appropriate to protect athletes from harm. The recommendations made by

sport administrators are consistent with the existing advancement strategies and suggest that the

participants are aware of the shortcomings associated with the current methods employed to

achieve safe sport.


However, the study’s findings differ from those of Mountjoy and colleagues (2015), who

recommended defining the inappropriate and violent behaviours of sport to effectively advance

safeguards. Based upon the reported positive effects of successfully advancing a safe sport

culture, this study supports the notion that safe sport frameworks extend beyond definitions of

harm prevention to include the optimisation of the sport experience through the promotion of

positive values. Therefore, the recommended strategies would be designed and enforced to not

solely prevent harm, but also to promote a culture of sport that is inclusive, accessible,

welcoming, and safe for all participants. The positive effects of advancing safe sport conveyed

by the sport administrators in the current study are consistent with interpretations of values-based

sport. Values-based sport represents an organisation’s commitment towards establishing a sport

system defined by the ideas of fairness, excellence, fun, and inclusion (Public Policy Forum,

2019). Values-based sport allows all participants to experience the range of physical, emotional,

and social benefits sport has to offer and ensures policies, programmes, and procedures are

designed to eradicate unethical issues corrupting the integrity of sport, while simultaneously

striving to improve the sport experience for all stakeholders of sport (Public Policy Forum,

2019). The current participants’ descriptions of an ideal safe sport environment are also

congruent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child given their references

to the recognition and promotion of human rights and the commitment to safeguarding children

from all types of abuses and harm (The United Nations, 1989). These findings are important

because they extend the original and more commonly accepted purpose of safe sport of

preventing maltreatment of athletes to the promotion of human rights and the recognition of

sport’s potential to contribute to optimal development of individuals, communities, and societies.

The promotion of human rights is a defining feature of the term safeguarding. The National


Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) in the United Kingdom describes

safeguarding as: protecting children from abuse and maltreatment; preventing harm to children’s

health or development; ensuring children grow up with the provision of safe and effective care,

and taking action to enable all children and young people to have the best outcomes (National

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 2020). Safeguarding encompasses the benefits

of safe sport (i.e., prevention of harm) and is driven by the promotion of positive values and

human rights in sport. To achieve safe sport, therefore, sport organizations must develop

education, policies, complaint mechanisms, and research that not only prevent harm in sport, but

advance values such as inclusion, fairness, ethics, and accessibility, as recommended by the

participants. Interestingly, the term “safeguarding” has traditionally been used in the UK but is

not the norm in other countries. Even in international sport organizations, such as the

International Olympic Committee and Safe Sport International, the term safe sport is used rather

than safeguarding.

The findings suggest that the sport administrators’ recommendations are more congruent

with advancing safeguarding rather than safe sport. The participants’ reports are interpreted to

indicate that the prevention of harm framework that largely characterizes safe sport initiatives is

limited and should expand to include the promotion of positive values to reflect the desired

cultural shift towards safeguarding sport. Although some sport organisations acknowledge in

their conceptualization of safe sport the importance of promoting positive values, the safe sport

strategies implemented by these organisations fail to exemplify these. It may be that sport

organisations assume that strategies employed to prevent harm will also achieve the positive

outcomes of inclusion, accessibility, and adherence to human rights. As such, organisations may

overlook the importance of designing and implementing advancement strategies to achieve these


safeguarding outcomes distinctively and instead employ preventative strategies assuming the

concurrent achievement of harm prevention and values-based sport. While values-based sport

may be associated with the positive by-product of preventing harm, the reverse is not true. In

other words, a focus on the prevention of harm exclusively will not guarantee the positive

benefits that emerge from values-based sport but a focus on values-based sport will inherently

include the prevention of harm. This may explain why the sport administrators recommended

strategies that currently exist within the safe sport landscape; these strategies are important but

ineffective if grounded within principles of harm prevention rather than being values-driven.

Informed by the data and research in the areas of safe sport and safeguarding, we propose

a model that illustrates the current status of the safe sport landscape reflecting a prevention of

harm approach (Figure 1. Prevention of Harm Framework for Safe Sport). This is followed by an

additional figure, which illustrates a values-based approach to safeguarding athletes (Figure 2.

Values-Based Framework for Safeguarding Sport).


The development and execution of the advancement strategies recommended by the sport

administrators function collectively and interactively to reinforce a framework of prevention; all

education, research, policies, and independent monitoring and complaint mechanisms are

designed to prevent harm in sport, thus achieving a safe sport culture. The safe sport culture is

depicted within a square to illustrate the confined interpretations of harm prevention that have

largely defined safe sport. When a sport organization employs these strategies, the success of

these strategies is assumingly measured by reduced rates of harm within the sport organization.

For example, if there is a report of sexual abuse within a sport organization, the strategies

associated with safe sport may adjust insofar to further prevent future acts of sexual abuse. The

advancement strategies are continuously modified based upon the feedback received from the

sport context (i.e., whether harm is occurring or not) and the feedback ensures strategies are

continuously refined to reinforce the prevention of harm framework. However, the findings of

the current study suggest a shift from a harm prevention towards a values-driven approach is

needed. This is depicted in Figure 2. Values-Based Framework of Safeguarding Sport.


The values-based safeguarding framework is a representation of the cultural shift

advocated by the participants. Education, research, policies, and independent complaint

mechanisms are designed and implemented to achieve a safeguarding sport culture, characterized

by the prevention of harm and the promotion of values such as inclusion, safety, fairness,

accessibility, and human rights. Similar to the prevention framework for safe sport, the

advancement strategies in the values-based framework for safeguarding are interconnected to the

extent that the development and modification of one strategy influences the others to some

degree. However, in this framework, the advancement strategies reinforce both harm prevention

and promotion of values-based sport. The safeguarding sport culture is depicted as an evolving

circle to illustrate the everchanging, growing culture of safeguarding sport; this suggests that

discourses of values-based sport related to concepts of inclusion, accessibility, and human rights

in sport will continuously evolve relative to societal changes and emerging research in these

particular fields of interest.

Sport administrators’ support of shifting towards a safeguarding sport culture

demonstrates a commitment to confront and disassemble traditional and prevailing beliefs in

sport such as hegemonic masculine norms, win-at-all-costs, and controlling coaching strategies

(Hughes & Coakley, 1991; Silva et al., 2012; Stebbings et al., 2015). Preventing experiences of

maltreatment will require a different set of prevailing assumptions, a notion supported by the

current administrators’ claims that a culture reflective of inclusion, accessibility, and human

rights, is needed. By grounding advancement strategies in the principles of safeguarding, a

cultural shift to the promotion of positive values and human rights in sport will be promoted.

This study was limited to investigating sport administrators’ recommendations, and to

advance safe sport, exploring others’ perspectives, especially those of athletes, is needed.


Researchers should further explore ways to shift the culture of sport from a prevention of harm to

a values-based approach in which human rights guide the design and implementation of sport.

Finally, the recommended modes of intervention should be piloted and assessed within

subcultures of sport to understand how these strategies, when grounded within a framework of

safeguarding, affects the perspectives and behaviours of stakeholders and the welfare of

participating athletes.

Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to explore sport administrators’ perspectives on strategies

to advance safe sport. The findings indicated recommendations for a consistent framework for

safe sport, education, research, policy implementation and enforcement, and an independent

complaint mechanism. These strategies are consistent with findings from previous studies, and

interestingly, are already in existence in many sport organizations. We propose that sport

administrators have recommended strategies that are currently in place because the focus of these

existing strategies is inadequate. More specifically, most sport organizations implement

strategies that focus on the prevention of harm but the administrators in the current study

advocated for strategies that focus on the promotion of inclusion, equity, accessibility, and

human rights, consistent with a values-based approach to sport. Such an approach is congruent

with the notion of safeguarding which reflects both ensuring safety as well as the adherence to

human rights.

References

Belgrave, L. L., & Seide, K. (2019). Grounded theory methodology: Principles and practices. In

P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health and social sciences (pp.

299-316). Springer Nature Singapore.


Brackenridge, C. (2001). Spoilsports: Understanding and preventing sexual exploitation in sport.

Routledge.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.

Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). Grounded theory in historical perspective: An

epistemological account. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of

grounded theory (pp. 31-57). Sage.

Campbell, S. R. (2002). Constructivism and the limits of reason: Revisiting the Kantian

problematic. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21, 421-445.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020844323677

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative

analysis. Sage.

Child Protection in Sport Unit (2020). Keep children safe in sport. https://thecpsu.org.uk/

Coaching Association of Canada (2020). Safe sport training. https://safesport.coach.ca/

Daly, K. J. (2007). Epistemological considerations in qualitative research. In K. J. Daly (Ed.),

Qualitative methods for family studies and human development (pp. 19-42). Sage

Publications.

Daube, M., & Thomas, S. L. (2016). Promoting harm? The responsibilities of sports

administrators. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 40(2), 103.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12534



Higgs, C., Way, R., Harber, V., Jurbala, P., & Balyi, I. (2019). Long-term development in sport

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020844323677

https://thecpsu.org.uk/


https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12534


and physical activity. 3.0. Sport for Life Society. https://sportforlife.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2019/06/Long-Term-Development-in-Sport-and-Physical-Activity-

3.0.pdf

Hughes, R., & Coakley, J. (1991). Positive deviance among athletes: The implications of

overconformity to the sport ethic. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8(4), 307-325.

International Olympic Committee (2017). Safeguarding athletes from harassment and abuse

in sport: IOC Toolkit for IFs and NOCs. https://d2g8uwgn11fzhj.cloudfront.net/wp-

content/uploads/2017/10/18105952/IOC_Safeguarding_Toolkit_ENG_Screen_Full1.pdf

International Olympic Committee (2020). IOC safe sport initiatives: Overview.

https://www.olympic.org/safe-sport



Kenny, M., & Fourie, R. (2015). Contrasting classic, Straussian, and constructivist grounded

theory: Methodological and philosophical conflicts. The Qualitative Report, 20(8), 1270-

1289.




surveillance system. Sport Management Review, 23, 95-103.








https://d2g8uwgn11fzhj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/18105952/IOC_Safeguarding_Toolkit_ENG_Screen_Full1.pdf

https://d2g8uwgn11fzhj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/18105952/IOC_Safeguarding_Toolkit_ENG_Screen_Full1.pdf

https://www.olympic.org/safe-sport

https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2019-0016




Kukla, A. (2000). Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. Routledge.

Lempert, L. B. (2007). Asking questions of the data: Memo writing in the grounded theory

tradition. In A Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp.

245-264). Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions,

and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE

handbook of qualitative research (pp. 97-128). SAGE.

Mesquita, I., Ribeiro, J., Santos, S., & Morgan, K. (2014). Coach learning and coach education:

Portuguese expert coaches’ perspective. The Sport Psychologist, 28(2), 124-136.

http://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2011-0117

Morse, J. M. (2007). Sampling in grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage

handbook of grounded theory (pp. 229-244). Sage.

Mountjoy, M., Brackenridge, C., Arrington, M., Blauwet, C., Carska-Shepphard, A., Fasting, K.,

et al. (2016). International Olympic committee consensus statement: Harassment and

abuse (non-accidental violence) in sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(17),


Mountjoy, M., Rhind, D. J. A., Tiivas, A., & Leglise, M. (2015). Safeguarding the child athlete

in sport: A review, a framework and recommendations for the IOC youth athlete

development model. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(13), 883-886.


National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (2020). Safeguarding children and

child protection. https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/safeguarding-child-protection

Noble, J., & Vermillion, M. (2014). Youth sports administrators’ perceptions and knowledge or

http://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2011-0117



https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/safeguarding-child-protection


organizational policies on child maltreatment. Children and Youth Services Review, 38,

52-57. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.01.011

Play by the Rules (2020). Child safe sport.

https://www.playbytherules.net.au/got-an-issue/child-safe-sport

Public Policy Forum (2019). The Values Proposition: Building a stronger Canada through

values-based sport.

https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/pdf/thevaluesproposition-ppf-march2019-

en.pdf

Rapmund, V. J. (1999). A story around the role of relationships in the world of a “depressed”

woman and the healing process. Contemporary Family Therapy, 21(2), 239-266.

Roberts, V, Sojo, V., & Grant, F. (2020). Organisational factors and non-accidental violence in

sport: A systematic review. Sport Management Review, 23, 8-27.


Safe Sport International (2019). Abuse of athletes happens.


Silva, P., Botelho-Gomes, P., & Goellner, S. V. (2012). Masculinities and sport: The emphasis

on hegemonic masculinity in Portuguese physical education classes. International

Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(3), 269-291.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2010.529846

Stebbings, J., Taylor, I. M., & Spray, C. M. (2015). The relationship between psychological

well- and ill-being, and perceived autonomy supportive and controlling interpersonal

styles: A longitudinal study of sport coaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 19, 42-

49. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.02.002

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.01.011

https://www.playbytherules.net.au/got-an-issue/child-safe-sport

https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/pdf/thevaluesproposition-ppf-march2019-en.pdf

https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/pdf/thevaluesproposition-ppf-march2019-en.pdf



https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2010.529846

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.02.002


The United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Treaty Series, 1577, 3.

US Center for SafeSport (2020). US center for safesport. https://safesport.org/

Wurtele, S. K. (2012). Preventing the sexual exploitation of minors in youth-serving

organizations. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 2442-2453.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.09.009

https://safesport.org/

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.09.009


217

CHAPTER SIX: CUMULATIVE DISCUSSION

The following thesis sought to understand how stakeholders in sport conceptualize and

experience safe sport and to elicit their recommendations for advancing safe sport. This purpose

is important because of the lack of a universal definition and limited research exploring the

origins, effects, and experiences of safe sport. Despite these limitations, sport organizations have

felt compelled to react quickly to high-profile cases of athlete maltreatment with the

development and implementation of educational programmes, policies, and procedures in

attempt to eradicate the various forms of harm that exist in sport. Unfortunately, these reactions

have occurred in the absence of a consistent definition of safe sport and with most sport

organizations construing safe sport in a limited way as the prevention of abuse and harassment in

sport.

Overview of Findings

This thesis is organized into three distinct studies exploring stakeholders’

conceptualization and experiences of safe sport, as well as their recommendations for advancing

safe sport. Despite participant overlap across the three studies, the research offers a novel

contribution to the developing field of safe sport by expanding our understanding of

stakeholders’ experiences of safe sport and their perspectives on how best to conceptualize and

achieve safe sport.

In study one, a constructivist grounded theory methodology was employed to explore

how forty-three stakeholders in sport, including sixteen high-performance (interuniversity,

Olympic, Paralympic, professional/semi-professional) athletes, nine high-performance

(interuniversity) coaches, thirteen sport administrators, and five researchers understood safe

sport. Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with each participant, who were


asked the question, “what does safe sport mean?” The findings reveal three major

interpretations of safe sport – the prevention of physical harm (i.e., injuries, concussions,

doping), the prevention of maltreatment, and the optimisation of the sport experience. Coaches

and athletes were more likely to struggle in defining safe sport; however, those who did propose

definitions focused on the prevention of physical harm. Specifically, this conceptualization

focused on preventing physical injuries or concussions that stem from the use of faulty

equipment or participation in a hazardous sport environment (i.e., wet floor, broken glass). In

comparison, the sport administrators and researchers typically provided definitions alluding to

the prevention of maltreatment, including sexual, physical, and emotional abuse, neglect,

harassment, discrimination, and bullying. A few coaches and athletes described safe sport

similarly and included in their conceptualization topics of mental health and hazing. Finally,

some stakeholders, particularly researchers and administrators suggested that the promotion of

positive, welcoming, inclusive, healthy, and rights-based values is essential in fostering safe

sport. Many participants recognized how conceptions of safe sport represent the natural

evolution of sport towards becoming an abuse-free, equitable, safe space for all. The findings

were interpreted through a safeguarding lens which extends the notion of physical and

psychological safety to the protection from acts of maltreatment and the promotion of one’s

rights and individual welfare. Stemming from these findings, a conceptual safeguarding sport

framework was proposed (see Figure 2. Safeguarding Sport Framework on p. 274). This research

contributes to the advancement of a conceptualization of safe sport that is informed by the views

of diverse stakeholder groups in sport and may serve as the foundation to the development of

policies and programmes internationally.


Study two was methodologically informed by an interpretive phenomenological analysis

and relied on semi-structured interviews to understand how athletes with under-represented

identities conceptualize and experience safe sport. This was an important question to pursue

because there is a lack of research on safe sport experiences of athletes with under-represented

identities, despite the body of evidence outside of sport that shows higher rates of violence

amongst equity-deserving groups. Seven participants, including two Black male athletes, two

White, gay male athletes, one Middle Eastern female athlete, one White, physically disabled

female athlete, and one White, non-binary, queer, physically disabled athlete were asked to

conceptualize and describe their experiences of safe sport. The findings revealed that athletes

with under-represented identities are more likely to conceptualize safe sport through a

discriminatory lens; this interpretation seems to be influenced by experiences of prejudice within

sport and contributed to participants’ perception of safe sport being an unattainable ideal for

equity-deserving individuals. Specifically, the athletes shared several experiences of verbal and

non-verbal acts of discrimination, perpetrated by their coaches or teammates. Verbal acts of

discrimination included prejudiced comments and stereotyping based upon identity

characteristics. In comparison, non-verbal acts of discrimination often included acts of exclusion.

Interestingly, the findings indicate that athletes who can hide their identity from the public (e.g.,

White, gay males) reportedly experienced more equitable treatment in sport compared to athletes

who had visible minority characteristics (e.g., Black or athletes with a disability). The findings

confirm that athletes with under-represented identities are at increased risk of experiencing harm

in sport. As such, athletes with under-represented identities question the integrity of safe sport

and whether safe sport initiatives can effectively create inclusive and accessible spaces for all.

This study is important because it challenges safe sport conceptualizations to evolve beyond


efforts of preventing abuse to consider how normative views of gender, race, ability, and

sexuality, which are historically entrenched in sport, contribute to unsafe, discriminatory sport

experiences for athletes from equity-deserving groups. This research encourages those

responsible for safe sport to adopt an intersectional lens when advancing policies and

programmes to promote inclusive and accessible sport for all participants.

Finally, study three utilized a constructivist grounded theory methodology to investigate

strategies for advancing safe sport. Thirteen highly ranked national and international sport

administrators participated in an individual semi-structed interview inquiring about their

recommendations for advancing safe sport. The participants offered five recommendations:

establish a universal framework of safe sport, design and implement education, implement and

enforce policies, establish independent monitoring and complaint mechanisms, and conduct

research to ensure advancement strategies are current and relevant. The recommended strategies

function to promote a culture of sport that deviates away from unsafe maxims that have been

normalized in sport, such as hegemonic masculinity, maltreatment, or controlling coaching

practices. Based upon the findings, a Values-Based Framework for Safeguarding Sport (see

Figure 4. Values-Based Framework for Safeguarding Sport on p. 276) is proposed; the

framework suggests that education, research, policy enforcement, and independent monitoring

and complaint mechanisms must function to reinforce a safeguarding sport framework, defined

by the prevention of harm and optimisation of the sport experience through the promotion of

positive values in sport. This research is significant for several reasons. It is the first Canadian

study that explores sport administrators’ perspectives of advancing safe sport, which is essential

because sport administrators play a significant role in establishing and advancing safe sport.

Much of the research on maltreatment explores athletes’ experiences, rather than the initiatives


designed to eliminate harm from sport; this research provides critical insight into how to

eradicate maltreatment and promote human rights in sport. Additionally, this research reinforces

the recommendation of developing a universal safe sport framework as a starting point for

effectively advancing safe sport. As well, the research supports the recommendations made in

the current literature that suggest a multifaceted approach, inclusive of diverse advancement

strategies, is necessary to successfully advance safe sport. Finally, this research is beneficial

because of its practical implications; based upon the findings, a participant-informed model of

advancing safeguarding sport was developed for sport organizations to use when developing

procedures for advancing safe sport.

Main Contributions

Methodological Contributions

There are significant methodological gaps in the field of safe sport and this dissertation

contributes to the research by exploring the notion, experiences of, and recommendations for

advancing safe sport using the qualitative methodologies of constructivist grounded theory

methodology (CGTM) and interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA).

The constructivist paradigm informing studies one and three suggests a CGTM is

methodologically appropriate for exploring stakeholders’ conceptualization of and

recommendations for advancing safe sport. Deviating away from the traditional, objectivist

grounded theory in favour of CGTM enhances the research in various ways; most notably, the

researcher keeps the participants close and their words intact throughout the analysis and theory

development (Charmaz, 2000), and the researcher and their participants coproduce the data for

the researcher to eventually observe and define (Charmaz, 1995). As such, the concept of safe

sport and the strategies of achieving it are informed by those who are most impacted by safe


sport, such as athletes and coaches. This process of collaborating with participants when

conducting safe sport research is supported by Hartill and Lang (2015), who recommend when

conducting safeguarding research that “children…be both participants within research as well as

beneficiaries of research…research should be: informed by children’s perspectives; include

children as participants; and deliver research to children in an appropriate format according to

age and ability” (p. 199). The premise of this recommendation suggests participants affected by

safe(guarding) sport should be involved in the research, to benefit from the research. Studies one

and three consider the perspectives of sport administrators, coaches, and researchers as well;

inquiring about safe sport through multiple lenses enhances our understanding of this movement

and reflects the collaborative responsibility of all sport stakeholders to contribute towards the

advancement of safe sport and the elimination of maltreatment (Kerr et al., 2019).

A major criticism of safe sport has been the lack of a universal definition (Kerr et al.,

2020), consequently influencing various governing sport bodies to create their own versions of

safe sport in their prevention and intervention initiatives. Based upon the safe sport

interpretations conveyed by the stakeholders in study one, current safe sport definitions advanced

by sport organizations are incomplete, insofar as several interpretations focus exclusively on the

prevention of abuse and harassment and fail to acknowledge the importance of promoting human

rights for all participants. The results from study one suggests that coaches and athletes tend not

to have a deep or comprehensive understanding of safe sport and are inclined to focus on the

lowest common denominator of physical safety. Nonetheless, the collaboration between

researcher and participants in CGTM ensures the participants’ voices are considered throughout

the analysis and reflected in the constructed theory. Moreover, the dialectic nature of CGTM

addresses the concern of many about a top-down approach to safe sport, which suggests safe


sport was developed, and continues to be developed, by those running sport organizations.

Several researchers (Boocock, 2002; Donnelly et al., 2016; Lang & Hartill, 2015; Lopiano &

Zotos, 2015; Parent, 2015) explain how the development of policies or procedures to protect

athletes from abuse in sport was a contingency for national governing bodies (NGBs) across

various countries to receive government funding. As Donnelly and colleagues (2016) point out,

many sport organizations have not implemented the necessary measures and have not been held

accountable by having funding removed for non-compliance. Hartill and Lang (2015) explain

that “powerful organizations are implementing policy from ‘on high’ and then cherry-picking

their successes – with no acknowledgment of their failures – and amplifying them to justify their

own existence and budgets” (p. 199). Thus, the findings suggest that safe sport remains a

conversation at higher levels of sport organizations, with very little effect on the ground level

where coaches and athletes function. The importance of incorporating the perspectives of

athletes, who should not only be participants of safe sport research, but beneficiaries of the

research (Hartill & Lang, 2015), is highlighted as well. Charmaz (2001) stresses the importance

of the writing, analysis, and developing theory to be evocative of the participants’ experiences.

Clearly integrating the participants’ voices in the research “demonstrates the value the researcher

places on the participant as a contributor to the reconstruction of the final grounded theory

model” (Mills et al., 2006, p. 32) and reflects the ethical duty of researchers to describe the

participants’ experiences “in the most faithful way possible” (Munhall, 2001, p. 540). As such,

the constructed frameworks presented in this thesis are informed directly by the participants’

interpretations of what safe sport is and their perspectives about how best to achieve it.

The inductive nature of a CGTM has illuminated our understanding of how stakeholders

in sport conceptualize safe sport and their recommendations for advancing this. Using open-


ended semi-structured interviews, several preconceived ideas about safe sport have been

renegotiated through these studies. For example, while many sport organizations advance

definitions of safe sport grounded in abuse prevention, the stakeholders offered different

interpretations that additionally focus on the prevention of physical harm and the optimisation of

the sport experience. Using a CGTM, these interpretations are conveyed through the construction

of theory. The reflexive nature of this methodological strand has permitted me to develop

frameworks that capture the diverse perspectives of stakeholders regarding safe sport. The

proposed frameworks contribute to the developing field of safe sport and offer other researchers

an opportunity to evaluate safe sport initiatives relative to the recommended, participant-

informed frameworks. Additionally, a CGTM aligns with my position as an interpretivist. Using

this methodology represents an acceptance of the relativist and subjectivist understanding of

reality and knowledge creation. The interpretive stance of CGTM is critical in the developing

field of safe sport because it demonstrates a willingness to consider the heterogenous truths held

by diverse stakeholders who are responsible for or affected by safe sport.

Study two employed an IPA methodology to understand the lived safe sport experiences

of athletes with under-represented identities. Based upon the findings, we understand that

athletes with under-represented identities perceive safe sport as an unrealistic ideal and that

many of them experience unsafe, prejudicial behaviours in and out of sport, such as verbal and

non-verbal acts of discrimination. The implementation of an IPA, situated within a critical theory

paradigm (Guba & Lincoln, 1994), enhances our understanding of the historic forms of

discrimination affecting athletes with under-represented identities and offers significant insights

into how these experiences can be transformed through safe sport. Moreover, current research

supports that athletes with under-represented identities are more susceptible to experiencing acts


of maltreatment in sport (Alexander et al., 2011; Kerr et al., 2019; Vertommen et al., 2016).

However, the previous research was not framed to explore the experiences of harm endured by

athletes from equity-deserving groups and thus, findings pertaining to these groups are presented

as a by-product of the research, characterized by low representation and very few insights of the

particular types of harm experienced. The current research advances our understanding of the

specific types of harm endured by athletes with under-represented identities and how safe sport

ought to develop to benefit those victimized by acts of discrimination in sport.

Conceptual Contributions

This research represents a critical step towards establishing an empirically driven

conceptualization of safeguarding sport. In 2010, the United States Olympic Committee (USOC)

formulated a working group to address the harmful behaviours endured by athletes in sport

(Koller, 2018). Through this, a SafeSport director was hired in 2011, a SafeSport training

programme was launched in 2012 (Cahil, 2012; Koller, 2018), and the term SafeSport was

officially trademarked (Moskovitz, 2018). The developments initiated by the USOC reveal the

etymology of the term safe sport and since then, the concept has emerged across national and

international sport contexts. However, the absence of an empirically informed, universal

definition of safe sport has led to numerous, inconsistent definitions being advanced by

governing sport bodies who reactively attempt to eliminate abuse from sport (Kerr et al., 2020).

Moreover, although the prevention of abuse tends to be the dominant discourse held by many

sport organizations, emerging research suggests it is not the only interpretation, nor is it the

dominant conception held by those most impacted by safe sport. The findings of Mountjoy and

colleagues (2020) from the Youth Olympic Games suggest many athletes are unfamiliar with the

term safe sport. The most prevalent interpretations of safe sport offered by the athletes focused


on general safety in sport (e.g., feelings of safety, using safe equipment, and participating in a

safe environment) or fair play (e.g., following rules or clean sport). These findings reveal that the

individuals who are supposed to benefit from safe sport – athletes – do not understand what safe

sport entails. Mountjoy and colleagues (2020) suggest the safe sport knowledge gap stems from

the quality of educational programmes in athletes’ respective countries; however, the research

from this dissertation challenges this assumption. Rather, I propose that the apparent “safe sport

knowledge gap” described by Mountjoy and colleagues (2020) has resulted from the top-down

design of safe sport; instead, the interpretations advanced by athletes are integral in shaping a

conceptualization of safe sport that is relevant to those impacted by safe sport. Instead of

explaining why athletes did not understand safe sport, researchers should seek to understand the

relevance of their perspectives and be open to interpretations that expand beyond the prevention

of maltreatment. Inquiring about the perspectives of athletes is consistent with the

recommendations made in the IOC Toolkit (2017) and by Hartill and Lang (2015), who advocate

for involving children and athletes in the development of safeguarding policies; for this to be an

effective process though, we first need to understand how children and athletes understand safe

sport.

The findings of this thesis suggest that the concept of safe sport should expand to focus

on the prevention of physical harm (e.g., concussions, physical injuries, doping) that manifest

from using faulty equipment or participating in a hazardous environment and the optimisation of

the sport experience (e.g., promotion of positive values and human rights). The findings from

study one suggests that the prevention of physical harm and the optimisation of the sport

experience are the dominant perspectives held by coaches and athletes defining safe sport. In

comparison, researchers and administrators are more likely to advance definitions of abuse


prevention; the distinct conceptualization between the stakeholder groups further supports the

idea that the construct of safe sport has developed in a top-down manner and has yet to reach

stakeholders at the ground level of sport (i.e., coaches and athletes). These findings also highlight

a gap between research and practice; finding ways to promote evidence-based practices remain a

challenge for researchers and practitioners. Additionally, sport organizations’ failed compliance

with policies established by government and funding agencies to safeguard athletes (Donnelly et

al., 2016) may explain why athletes and coaches are generally unaware of what safe sport

represents. I speculate that the failed responsibility of sport organizations to communicate safe

sport-related initiatives (e.g., harassment and abuse policies, arms-length harassment officers)

has contributed towards athletes and coaches’ lack of general awareness regarding safe sport.

Safe or Safeguarding Sport?

Although the creation and trademarking of the term safe sport stems from developments

in the American sport system within the last ten years, efforts to protect athletes and eliminate

maltreatment from sport initially developed in Canada and the UK several years prior. In the UK

specifically, developments “within and outside sport shaping the governance and practice of

sport” has positioned the UK as a world leader in establishing athlete welfare (Lang & Hartill,

2015, p. 34). The emerging interpretations of safe sport advanced by this thesis suggest

conceptions of safe sport ought to be replaced by safeguarding sport, which is the dominant

paradigm of athlete welfare initiatives in the UK. Safeguarding sport is characterized as a child-

focused approach that prioritizes the promotion of human rights to enhance the welfare of

children (Lang & Hartill, 2015). In addition to protecting children from acts of maltreatment,

safeguarding reflects a commitment to “preventing impairment of children’s health or

development; ensuring that children are growing up in circumstances consistent with the


provision of safe and effective care; and taking action to enable all children to have the best

outcomes” (Department of Education, 2013, p. 85). Specifically, there are three modalities in

which safeguarding may function within sport. First, safeguarding in sport focuses explicitly on

protecting children and youth from acts of maltreatment that occur when participating in sport

(i.e., during practice or competition); “during this time, children are deemed the responsibility of

the organisation and care is taken to manage the environment and those with contact of the child

during this time” (Rhind & Owusu-Sekyere, 2018, p. 16). The focus of safeguarding in sport is

on relational maltreatment and this approach to protecting athletes is often inherited by sport

organizations who prioritize sport performance (Brackenridge & Rhind, 2014). Second,

safeguarding around sport, concentrates on issues considered secondary to sport but may directly

influence or become influenced by sport (e.g., forced displacement due to large sporting events)

(Brackenridge & Rhind, 2014). Safeguarding around sport “is typically used by governing or

sport related children’s service agencies, whose ambitions to prevent maltreatment are more

extensive than sport or sporting performance” (Rhind & Owusu-Sekyere, 2018, pp. 16-17).

Finally, safeguarding through sport, uses sport as a vehicle to achieve “humanitarian objectives

such as peace building and post disaster development” (Rhind & Owusu-Sekyere, 2018, p. 17).

In this approach, sport functions to address harm or potential harms in society (Rhind & Owusu-

Sekyere, 2018). Typically, sport for development organizations utilized this approach to promote

the development of life skills or to facilitate community building in low-income countries; when

organizations and stakeholders commit to safeguarding through sport, then sport functions as a

vehicle through which the protection and promotion of children’s rights in sport may occur

(Rhind & Owusu-Sekyere, 2018). To the credit of the CPSU, by 2012, safeguarding sport had


evolved extensively since the Hickson case; by this time, the United States Olympic Committee

was just launching their first ever SafeSport training programme (Koller, 2018)

Considering the praise UK sport has received in advancing a safe culture of sport

(Bookcock, 2002; Lang & Hartill, 2015), it is perplexing that other countries, such as Canada,

have not inherited a similar system of safeguarding. This discrepancy is especially curious as

Graham James was sentenced in Canada just two years after Paul Hickson in the UK for similar

crimes perpetrated in sport. Given the UK’s position of leadership and their adoption of a

safeguarding framework, coupled with the findings of the current research which highlight the

importance of a safeguarding rather than a safe sport approach, one wonders why Canada has not

adopted a safeguarding approach to promoting athlete welfare? There is an absence of research

explaining why Canada has failed to implement a safeguarding framework in sport, but as

Solstad (2019) explains, “approaches to safeguarding in sport are likely to depend on how safety

is locally understood and how welfare is organized in a given country. This is influenced by

factors such as legal frameworks, child welfare orientation, sport policy, and political ideologies”

(p. 44). The ensuing sections proposes various explanations for Canada’s focus on harm

prevention through a safe sport approach and apparent lack of attention to promotion of human

rights through safeguarding.

Political Developments. The political climates of Canada and the UK in the 1990s may

explain why different athlete welfare procedures have emerged. In the 1990s, sport in England

underwent a reform, influenced by a change in government that committed to supporting general

and elite developments in sport (Green & Houlihan, 2004). The Prime Minster at the time, John

Major, was committed to support elite sport performance at the international level to resolve

national identity issues. In 1995, the Department of National Heritage would publish the first


policy statement related to sport in twenty years, entitled, Sport: Raising the Game, which

acknowledged the value of sport in developing children and conveyed political commitments

such as increased funding, the development of higher education programmes for coaches and

athletes, and enhancing participation opportunities in schools, which was of central priority

(Green, 2007; Green & Houlihan, 2004; Houlihan & Green, 2009). The promotion of sport

within government and the increased financial support may explain why England was able to

invest in and sustain efforts of safeguarding. The governance of sport led to important changes

that further accentuate England’s commitment to enhancing the sport experience, such as linking

sport funding to social inclusion initiatives and funding the professionalization of coaching

(Green, 2004).

In the 1980s, Canada was intensely committed to the development of elite sport and

athletes (Green, 2007). For example, in 1988, the federal government in Canada “committed

$C25 million for ten winter Olympic sport organizations to ensure that Canada would have a

‘best ever’ performance in 1988”; however, to receive the funding, the NSOs “were required to

develop four-year plans to improve their technical and administrative capacities to produce better

high-performance athletes” (Green, 2007, p. 931). Following the 1988 doping scandal of Ben

Johnson in the Seoul Olympics, the federal government developed a task force in 1992 to

evaluate federal government sport policy; the task force developed a report – Sport: The Way

Ahead – which criticized the priorities and political intent of Canadian sport for being overly

focused on elite sport and for being exceedingly controlling of the day-to-day operations and

development of sport organizations (Green, 2007).

By the mid-1990s, Canada’s economy was perceived as weak and under the Liberal

leadership of prime minister Jean Chrétien, federal funding for sport was significantly cut


(approximately 17% in 1996-97) (Green, 2007). By the 1998-99 period, funding for sport

through Sport Canada was $C52 million, compared to the $C86 million budget in 1986-87

(Green, 2007). According to Green (2007):

Although funding was cut, elite sport remained a priority, with the federal government

largely ignoring the thrust of the [1992 task force report] and its argument for a less elitist

approach to sport, and confirmed the priority of elite success by making it clear that

federal funding would be used primarily to fund elite athletes. (p. 933)

Despite a shift in government ideology and the withdraw of financial support, the development

of elite athletes was at the forefront of Sport Canada, at the expense of many other disadvantaged

groups; “several groups such as women, Aboriginals, athletes with disabilities as well as

economically disadvantaged groups contested this shift” (Comeau, 2013, p. 83) because these

groups experienced “an intensification of social exclusion” (Saint-Martin, 2007, p. 283) from

policies that prioritized high-performance sport. Eventually, the Sport Funding Accountability

Framework (SFAF) was introduced in 1995 and funding contingencies were in place that

required NSOs to have arms-length harassment officers and harassment policies. However, “the

SFAF criteria were heavily weighted towards elite success, with far less weight given to broader

social objectives”, with an estimate of 65% going towards high-performance (Green, 2007, p.

933) rather than safety. The results of this approach were reflected in the findings of Donnelly

and colleagues (2016), who reported that several NSOs did not abide by the SFAF, and yet,

funding was not cut, presumably attributable, in part, to the performance outcomes emphasis.

Then, in 2005-06, $C140 million was invested by Sport Canada, with $C5 million

specifically going towards improving participation rates, and the remainder towards initiatives to

enhance the development of high-performance athletes, with federal objectives of high-


performance sport being deemed a priority (Green, 2007). Overall, Canadian sport policy and the

system it influenced heading into the 21st-Century was described as bureaucratic and technical,

with an overemphasis on high-performance sport and the development of elite athletes (Green,

2007).

I speculate that Canada’s preoccupation with high-performance sport since the late 1980s

has interfered with the federal government’s ability to fund and incorporate safeguarding

measures in sport. Despite economic decline, government cuts, and increasing moral panic

surrounding issues of doping and athlete maltreatment in sport, Canada invested millions of

dollars into the development of elite athletes. These investments influenced the development of

Own the Podium, a $C117 million technical development programme designed in 2004 to aid

Canada in achieving first place at the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver and top three

in the Paralympic Winter Games (Dowling & Smith, 2016). Although Own the Podium was

originally developed as a temporary initiative to support elite athlete development in preparation

for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, it continued to operate beyond this time and evolved into a

formalized organization entity managing the development of high-performance athletes within

the Canadian sport system (Dowling & Smith, 2016). It appears the investment towards a high-

performance model of sport would consequently, conflict with the participation model of sport,

which focuses on increasing participation amongst young Canadians. In older versions of the

long-term athlete development model, Own the Podium was built into the development pathway

of athletes, encouraging specialization at a younger age to increase the likelihood of podium

success. The efforts of Own the Podium seem to reinforce values of winning and performance,

which have consequently been linked with negative experiences when prioritized in sport. In


summary, it may be argued that the focus of Canada’s sport system on high-performance sport

has taken precedence over the promotion of safe and inclusive sport experiences for Canadians.

As a comparator, while the UK also focused on developing their high-performance

system, financial investments were also made into social inclusion initiatives and committed

towards increasing participation in sport for developing children and youth through the

integration of school sport policies. The UK also had quite robust child protection initiatives

established – at least relative to Canada – which may explain why developments in sport to

promote athlete welfare appeared seamless. In 1986, the UK established the Childline, a helpline

to assist children with various issues, including experiences of maltreatment (Garratt et al.,

2013), which prompted responses from experts in the field of sport to suggest child protection

initiatives be developed in sport. In 1986, Brackenridge and Lyons advocated for a Code of

Practice to be implemented within the professional standards laid out for coaches:

With ever increasing public interest in sport, and in particular the achievement of high

standards of performance, there is a parallel rise in the demand for properly qualified

sports leaders and coaches to safeguard the wellbeing of the individual athlete and to

optimise sporting potential. (p. 2)

Years later, in light of the Hickson scandal, the National Coaching Foundation developed a

resource – Protecting Children from Abuse: A Guide for Everyone Involved in Children’s Sport –

conveying ethical practices in sport and advice related to child protection, as well as the Child

Protection Procedures in Swimming, which represented a radical deviation of child protection

policies in sport (Garratt et al., 2013). Up to this point, Codes of Ethics in sport were in place and

emphasized issues of performance as it related to child welfare; however, the publication of these

new policies suggested “a balance between the development of performance and the social,


emotional, intellectual and physical needs of the individual” was necessary (Garratt et al., 2013,

p. 621). As such, in the mid-1990s, discourses of performance were replaced by abuse; these

discourses and resources reflected the proactive stance of the UK with respect to athlete welfare,

which simultaneously funded high-performance sport and propelled safeguarding initiatives

forward in sport. The processes also redefined the role of the coach, who were called to work

with children, to protect children from acts of abuse in sport (Garratt et al., 2013). The

swimming-specific policy was released concurrently with the Working Together to Safeguard

Children policy, as well as the Protection of Children Act 1999 – A Practical Guide to the Act

for all Organisations Working with Children (Garratt et al., 2013). It appears these simultaneous

developments reflected the State’s concern for protecting children and collaborative efforts were

made to ensure children in every domain, including sport, would be safeguarded. The

development of safeguarding policies in sport also reflected the government’s awareness of the

scarcity of athlete protection initiatives; however, more importantly, they expressed their

willingness to correct the issue (Garratt et al., 2013). Eventually, the Child Protection in Sport

Unit (CPSU) was developed in 2001 (Boocock, 2002). It is likely that the collaboration of Sport

England with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) to

formulate the CPSU has contributed towards significant developments around safeguarding

children in sport. The CPSU was able to function “as a first point of call for sport organisations,

to coordinate the production of literature and training, to commission research into a range of

issues relating to child protection and to develop cross sport standards relating to standards and

training” (Garratt et al., 2013, p. 623). Canadian sport may have likely benefitted from a similar

collaboration with child protection services; however, Donnelly and colleagues (2016) report

how Children’s Aid Societies in Canada claim to be overburdened with abuse cases assumed to


be more severe than those which occur in sport. Additionally, assumptions of there being a

parallel complaint mechanism available in sport has interfered with the collaboration of child

protection services and NSOs in Canada (Donnelly et al., 2016).

It is also possible that the distinction between safeguarding and safe sport here resulted

from NGBs being less autonomous in the UK, along with State developments in safeguarding

that influenced developments within sport, whereas NSOs in Canada have had the agency to

function independently of Sport Canada in areas related to sport safety. Sport Canada established

the requirements for organizations to follow but did not ratify the SFAF policies of sport

organizations (Donnelly et al., 2016). Instead, compliance with the SFAF became dependent on

self-reports submitted by national sport organizations in Canada, which have been criticized for

being exaggerated, biased, and unreliable (Donnelly et al., 2016). The autonomous governance

of Canadian sport may have inhibited sport organizations from upholding their responsibilities

for athlete safety and welfare, including the honoring of human rights. In comparison, the

organizational structure of sport and government in England became intertwined, with sport

becoming increasingly more regulated as a means of addressing reports of abuse. The regulation

of sport in England may have influenced the recognition and reinforcement of human rights,

such as equity and safety, in sport. Additionally, the CPSU partnered with several child

protection agencies and managed to establish an inter-agency system committed to safeguarding

children in sport (Boocock, 2002). The partnership with government-funded child protection

services guaranteed that the CPSU would receive support from trained professionals; the

importance of this is accentuated when reminded that NSOs in Canada were given the autonomy

by Sport Canada to implement the SFAF and based on the evaluation of Donnelly and colleagues

(2016), sport organizations failed to adequately fulfil the requirements of the SFAF. As a result,


several cases of athlete maltreatment have infiltrated Canadian sport since the emergence of the

SFAF (e.g., Alpine Canada Alpin, Hockey Canada, Gymnastics Canada, Taekwondo Canada,

and Athletics Canada). Establishing effective partnerships between NSOs and child protection

services in Canada may enhance the NSOs’ alignment with child protection practices and would

inevitably enhance the governance of sport organizations that have historically possessed

complete autonomy (Donnelly et al., 2016).

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The institution of the United Nations (UN)

Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989 represented a global recognition that children,

although vulnerable, are equal to adults and deserve to have their rights protected and fulfilled as

active members of society (Volpe et al., 1997). In 1991, Canada signed an agreement adhering to

the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and since then, the Canadian government has

been criticized for its lackluster efforts and insufficient provision of resources to support its

implementation (Tang, 2003). In adherence with Article 44 of the legislation, which requires

state parties to report on the measures that have been enacted to ensure children benefit from the

rights of the legislation, Canada submitted their first report in 1994 (United Nations Committee

on the Rights of the Child, 1994a). The subsequent sections addresses a few of the highlights and

concluding observations of the UN Committee as it relates to the progress of Canada and the UK

in upholding the chartered rights.

In Section 3 of Canada’s 1994 report, national efforts around leisure were addressed as it

relates to Article 31 of the code, which declares:

State Parties recognize the rights of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and

recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in

cultural life and the arts.


Canada introduced the Fair Play Initiative (which eventually merged with the Canadian Centre

for Drug-Free Sport in 1995 to become the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport) (Thibault &

Harvey, 1997); the Fair Play Initiative was designed to advocate for the elimination of violence

and improvements towards an ethical environment in sports (United Nations Committee on the

Rights of the Child, 1994a). During this time, Canada’s unique Fair Play Initiative stands out as

being an early commitment towards eliminating violence in sport. In the UK’s 1994 report, there

was no reference to sport initiatives committed to eliminating violence from sport, but rather, the

UK reported several initiatives under the government’s sports policy statement, Sport and Active

Recreation, to increase children’s participation in sport and funding for sport facilities, coaches,

and research. Although child protection initiatives in UK sport were not well-defined at this time,

funding was allocated to enhancing children’s experiences in sport, whereas Canada invested

heavily into high-performance sport. Regarding the Fair Play Initiative, very little evidence was

available around how violence would be eliminated and funding allocations to support this

initiative. In the same report, Canada refers to the novelty of child abuse protocols in preventing

family violence and acknowledges the cruciality of the federal government to improve efforts

pertaining to the recovery and reintegration of child victims of abuse and exploitation (United

Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1994a). Canada acknowledged the deficit around

child protection, which at the time, may have reflected similar, weak efforts being upheld in

sport. Nearly a year later, the UN Committee offered their concluding observations and

expressed great concern with the inadequate protection provided by existing policy within this

field (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1995). The Committee suggested

additional measures be implemented “to effectively prevent and combat all forms of corporal

punishment and ill-treatment of children in schools or in institutions where children may be


placed” and recommended that to preserve the integrity of children, physical punishment against

children be prohibited (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1995, p. 3).

Currently, Canada’s Criminal Code of Conduct permits schoolteachers, parents, or persons

serving in place of a parent, to use “force by way of correction” as long as “force does not

exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances” (Criminal Code, 1985, sec. 43).

Canada’s next report, submitted in 2001, did not include any novel developments related

to sport safety, which is unusual given the development of the SFAF in the 1990s and the

expectation of there being a national response to the abuse endured by Sheldon Kennedy. The

Committee reported in their concluding observations being “deeply concerned” that no

legislation was enacted to eradicate section 43 of Canada’s Criminal Code, which permits

corporal punishment (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2003, p. 7). Similar

concerns were echoed in the Committee’s 2012 concluding observations, with concerns

surrounding the absence of a comprehensive national strategy to prevent acts of violence

committed against children, the limited support and programmes available for child victims of

abuse, and the increased rate of vulnerable populations experiencing violence, such as racialized

and disabled women and girls (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2012). The

Committee recommended that Canada “establish accessible and effective child-friendly

mechanisms for reporting cases of neglect and abuse and commensurate sanctions for

perpetrators (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2012, p. 12).

The 1994 report, along with the ones to follow, highlight several issues pertaining to

Canada’s alleged commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Tang (2003)

acknowledges some of the major criticisms relating to Canada’s poor execution of the charter,

including: the absence of a cohesive, child-centred federal approach to developing and


implementing policies, the absence of a national monitoring organization, and the acceptance of

corporal punishment, which has been prohibited by the UN as a form of physical violence, all of

which, except for corporal punishment, have been issues affecting athlete safety within Canada’s

sport system. The unproductive efforts of Canada’s federal government in implementing a

system that respects the individual rights of children may explain why child protection in

Canadian sport is also perceived as ineffective. In comparison, several other countries have been

praised for integrating recommendations from the UN Committee to enhance children’s rights

and evidently, the legislative changes made by the country were positively reflected in their

respective sport sectors. For example, in 1992 following Sweden’s ratification of the

Convention, legislation was evaluated to assess what changes were required to effectively

implement the Convention and by 1997, Sweden developed an independent monitoring system to

ensure compliance with the Convention (Hakansson, 1999). Within sport, the Swedish Sports

Confederation (ASPIRE, 2017) identifies four core values: sport must be fun, everyone has the

right to participate, fair play, and democracy participation. Similarly, the UK has experienced

similar growth since agreeing to the Convention in 1991. By 1997, the Youth Sports Unit was

integrated within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in collaboration with the

Department of Education and Employment and Sport England, to enhance sport and physical

education for children and youth in the UK (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the

Child, 2002). Additionally, the Sporting Ambassadors Scheme was designed by the English

Sports Council to provide men and women in sports the opportunity to visit schools to encourage

youth to live a physically active, healthy lifestyle; some of the programme’s objectives include,

promoting the value of sport as an essential component of every youth’s life, promoting values of

fair play and good sport behaviour so youth come to realize their full potential, and motivating


girls to become active in sport (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2002).

Seemingly, upon ratifying the convention, the promotion of rights-based sport in children and

youth had become a top priority in nations such as the UK and Sweden.

The fragmented legislative system of Canada, based on principles of federalism and

bijuralism (i.e., civil law governs Québec and common law is instituted across every other

province and territory) has been cited by the UN Committee as a barrier to consistently

implementing children’s rights (White, 2014). Looking specifically at Canada’s federal system,

the passiveness of Canadian government in promoting children’s rights may stem from the

Convention not being implemented by parliament; consequently, its provisions do not directly

affect the fulfilment of Canadian law (Tang, 2003). As such, Canada’s federal legislative system

is not oriented within a child-centred approach (Tang, 2003); considering the top-down approach

previously discussed, provincial and territorial sport sectors may have been directly influenced

by the perceived disregard of children’s rights at Canada’s federal level, thus explaining why

Canadian sport developed to become more performance-focused, rather than athlete-focused.

Additionally, the top-down concern impacting the development of child/athlete protection

initiatives in sport may be reinforced by the assumed failed efforts of Canada’s Children’s

Bureau; this body was developed to ensure government policies reflected the rights conveyed in

the Charter and served as a facilitator between the federal government and various private and

voluntary sectors (Tang, 2003). The absence of a child-centred approach informing the

development of federal policy may have influenced other jurisdictions to adopt similar stances.

For example, the Alberta government has criticized the Convention for undermining the rights of

traditional family systems (Tang, 2003). The lack of concerted efforts expressed by Canada’s

federal government has interfered with there being a consistent framework of child protection


grounded in the promotion of children’s rights (Tang, 2003). Subsequently, these failed efforts

may have been conveyed in exchanges between the Children’s Bureau and various sport

organizations, thus hindering the development of child protection initiatives in provincial and

territorial sport sectors across Canada. Considering Canada’s approach to upholding the

Convention and the various concerns reported (Tang, 2003), it is not surprising that Canadian

sport has experienced similar criticisms, particularly relating to the absence of a national

independent reporting mechanism and the failed integration of athletes’ perspectives and rights

in the development of policies.

Between 2002 and 2006, the UK government invested £134 million into sports and the

arts to create 269 new facilities and increase accessibility in low socioeconomic areas in

England. Additionally, between 2003 and 2006, the Positive Futures programme was established

to provide equity-deserving youth greater opportunities to participate in sport, reportedly

enhancing over 100,000 youth through the programme (United Nations Committee on the Rights

of the Child, 2008). A US$15 million investment in scholarship money, provided by The

Ministry of Education, Youth, Sports, Gender Affairs, and Culture, was also distributed between

2005 and 2006 to enhance children’s needs of education, association, and freedom of expression

(United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2007). As previously discussed, during

the same period, Sport Canada invested over $C100 million into high-performance sport. Several

safeguarding initiatives have also been addressed in the UK’s 2008 report, including, but not

limited to, Working Together to Safeguard Children (2006), the Safeguarding Vulnerable

Groups Act 2006, and the Children Act 2004, which “set out a new requirement for local

authorities in England and Wales to establish Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs),

designed to ensure that the key agencies work effectively together to identify and respond to


signs of abuse” (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2008, p. 59). It may have

been sport’s escalation within UK government, the emerging developments of safeguarding

initiatives, developing research in the field of athlete protection, and the realization of children’s

rights through the joint agreement with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that

propelled the UK’s stance on safeguarding in sport. Additionally, the publication on child abuse

in sport released by the National Coaching Foundation, reportedly “coincided with wider public

concern to protect the welfare of children in response to unprecedented revelations of abuse in

children’s residential care and church settings” (Garratt et al., 2013, p. 620). The same

developments were not evident within Canada, likely because it was not prioritized as was high-

performance sport. The core values underpinning policy development in Canadian sport

reportedly focused on high-performance and elite athlete development (Green & Houlihan,

2004). Despite the criticism Canada received from the UN around underdeveloped child

protection processes, very little changes were imposed at the time, likely because the absence of

punitive measures taken by the UN, thus reflecting a culture of passivity embraced by Canadian

government, consequently interfering with safeguarding developments in sport.

Under-represented Identities in Sport

The findings from study two suggest that safe sport is a standard of sport that is not

perceived to be fully experienced by those with under-represented identities. Moreover, the

participants’ conception of safe sport focuses less on the egregious acts of maltreatment often

addressed in discourses of safe sport, and more so on acts of discrimination, specifically verbal

and non-verbal acts of discrimination, which are rarely addressed in detail when reviewing safe

sport definitions, policies, and education. Several human rights charters, such as the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), and


the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) declare equal protection and equal benefit

of law, regardless of race, colour, religion, sex, age, ethnic origin, or mental and physical ability.

Despite the implementation of policies and the advocacy from civil rights organizations lobbying

for equal rights, research supports that individuals with under-represented identities are

susceptible to greater forms of harm. For example, Martin-Storey (2020) found that gender and

sexual minority adolescents report greater rates of dating violence, including sexual, physical,

and verbal harm, compared to heterosexual cisgender adolescents. Additionally, the prevalence

of childhood maltreatment in the United States is found to be greater among Black boys than

White boys (Lee et al., 2012), with Black children more likely to be neglected than any other

racial group (Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013). As well, girls are significantly more likely than boys

to be sexually abused and victimized (Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2013). Similarly, research

conducted in sport contexts reveals how minority groups are more susceptible to harm. Japanese

athletes are more prone to experiencing contact physical abuse in sport (Miller & Nakazawa,

2015) and girls are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse (Brackenridge, 1997). Policies exist

in sport that advocate for the fair and equitable treatment of all participants, regardless of how

they identify and yet, prejudicial issues continuously exist in sport, placing minority groups at

increased risk of harm. For example, European Sports Charter (Council of Europe, 1992)

determine it is a fundamental right for all young people to receive physical education and that

everyone should have an opportunity to participate in sport and physical recreation. Despite

advocating for every person to receive and experience sport and physical recreation, the findings

from study two suggest these rights are not exercised for athletes with under-represented

identities, evident by the various experiences shared by the athletes who were stripped the right

of participating because of their perceived physical disability, their gender, or because of the


colour of their skin. Given the reported trends to suggest that minority groups within and outside

of sport are more susceptible to experiencing maltreatment, it is perplexing that safe sport

definitions, policies, and educational programmes do not thoroughly acknowledge discrimination

in sport or address maltreatment through an intersectional lens. Evidently, athletes with under-

represented identities experience, and therefore understand, safe sport differently and yet, safe

sport fails to recognize or address discrimination in detail. Topics such as racism, ableism,

sexism, misogyny, and heterosexism are inadequately incorporated in safe sport definitions or

education. We understand that individuals with under-represented identities experience greater

harm and thus, greater or different measures are required to safeguard them. It is therefore

recommended that safe sport advancement strategies be developed through a safeguarding lens;

this position reinforces the fundamental rights that all participants should be able to access and

participate in sport, regardless of how they identify. Whereas safe sport tries to prevent acts of

abuse through maltreatment-focused education and policies, a safeguarding approach would

contribute to the elimination of maltreatment by educating people on their human rights in sport.

Advancing Safe Sport

Based upon the findings from study three, a multifaceted framework of achieving

safeguarding sport has been proposed to achieve – and replace – safe sport. The sport

administrators recognize the significance of establishing a universal framework of sport to ensure

that sport organizations striving for safe sport are doing so using policies and procedures

informed by a consistent foundation and empirical evidence. Differences in the conceptualization

of safe sport interferes with advancing a culture of safeguarding sport. If stakeholders, governing

bodies, and national sport organizations define safe sport differently, then there is a lack of

clarity about the goal and how to achieve it. Rhind and Owusu-Sekyere (2018) acknowledge how


the interpretive distinctions pertaining to maltreatment interfere with the global establishment of

a maltreatment framework in sport; consequently, the advancement of safeguarding research and

practices becomes a challenging endeavour (Porter et al., 2006). The proposed advancement

model suggests that a universal framework of safeguarding sport informs the development of

education, policies, independent complaint mechanisms, and research insofar that every

advancement strategy focuses on preventing injuries, preventing maltreatment, and optimizing

the sport experience and socializing participants’ rights. Moreover, the framework recognizes the

importance of research informing the development of intervention strategies. Current

intervention strategies, such as safe sport education, lacks an empirical foundation (Kerr et al.,

2020) and according to the sport administrators, research is needed to better understand how to

effectively advance safe sport.

In summary, advancing the protection of athletes from harm, promoting their rights, and

optimizing their sport experiences will need a multi-pronged and multi-faceted approach. The

findings of this research indicate the importance of establishing a consistent conceptual

framework with a commonly understood definition, a safeguarding rather than a safe sport

approach, and empirically-driven prevention and intervention initiatives, all of which should be

framed through a human rights lens. This study was limited by primarily focusing on the

interpretations, experiences, and recommendations of a Canadian population, with the exception

of three participants. With the term safe sport evolving to permeate sport organizations across the

world, insights from international stakeholders would have offered a more culturally

comprehensive definition of safe sport and possibly alternative recommendations for advancing

safe sport. There was an element of selection bias in studies one and three, whereby participants

with assumed knowledge of safe sport based upon their role – sport administrators and


researchers – were purposefully recruited to participate in the research. With this selection bias

may come a social desirability bias, whereby participants may offer insights that align more so

with the current landscape of safe sport and how it is being represented in national and

international sport organizations, rather than their personal views or interpretations of what safe

sport actually represents or how it ought to be achieved. Studies one and three were also limited

by a lack of diverse perspectives; all the sport administrators and researchers identified as White,

whereas only a few coaches and athletes identified being associated with an equity-deserving

group (e.g., Asian, Indian, and Black). Regarding study two, there were limited participants from

each equity-deserving group and thus, we continue to have a limited understanding of how safe

sport is interpreted and experienced by athletes with under-represented identities. Finally,

although there are benefits associated with conducting individual semi-structured interviews, the

research was limited by reliance on this method alone. Additional methods of inquiry, such as

photovoice, focus groups, observation, or the use of quantitative methods may have offered

unique insights to advance safe sport. There was an absence of perspectives from coaches and

athletes identifying with other levels of sport (e.g., high-performance youth sport, grassroots

sport, community youth sport, master’s level sport). Additionally, the perspectives of other

stakeholders, such as parents, volunteers, or officials, were not considered in the research.

Evidently, there are significant gaps in the developing field of safe sport. It is critical that

future research further explores different stakeholders’ interpretations of safe sport; specifically,

exploring the perspective of parents, children and youth, international stakeholders, officials, and

individuals from other equity-deserving groups (e.g., transgender athletes, Black females,

individuals of different ethnic origins and religious affiliations) will cultivate a more elaborate

understanding of what safe sport represents, how it is experienced, and how it is achieved. The


current findings also raise questions about how to optimize athletic performance while ensuring

safeguarding and the holistic health and well-being of athletes. Moreover, using diverse methods

of inquiry will provide a more elaborate understanding of what safe sport is, how it is

experienced, and recommendations for achieving it. Additionally, it would be insightful to

further explore recommendations of advancing safe sport from the perspectives of coaches and

athletes, who we understand from this research, have different interpretations of the movement

compared to sport administrators and researchers. As well, testing the effectiveness of prevention

and intervention initiatives reported by the sport administrators will contribute towards the

development of a refined safe sport system. Given the novelty of the concept safeguarding, this

construct ought to be further investigated to assess whether it will gain the same traction as safe

sport amongst sport organizations. Finally, the integration of human rights within the Canadian

safe sport movement is needed to shift the focus from the prevention of maltreatment to

optimizing experiences for all. Future research should explore the ways in which sport

organizations can, in practical ways, implement human rights-driven programmes to ensure all

participants are safeguarded from harm and able to experience welcoming, inclusive, and safe

sport.


References

ASPIRE. (2017). Swedish Sports Confederation (RF). ASPIRE.

https://www.aspiresport.eu/partner/swedish-sports-confederation

Boocock, S. (2002). The child protection in sport unit. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 8(2), 99–

106.

Brackenridge, C. (1997). ‘He owned me basically…’: Women’s experiences of sexual abuse in

sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 32(2), 115-130.

https://doi.org/10.1177/101269097032002001

Brackenridge, C., & Lyons, K. (1986, December 18). ‘Problem – what problems?’ Some

thoughts on sexuality and professional standards [Lecture]. BANC Annual Conference,

Bristol.

Cahil, C. (2012, March 16). U.S. Olympic Committee launches safe sport program. Team USA.

https://www.teamusa.org/media/news/usopc/US-Olympic-Committee-launches-Safe-

Sport-program

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 7, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being

Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory. In J. Smith, R. Harré, & L. Langenhove (Eds.),

Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27-65). Sage.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin &

Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Sage.

Charmaz, K. (2001). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. Gubrium & J.

Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 675-694).

Sage.

https://www.aspiresport.eu/partner/swedish-sports-confederation

https://doi.org/10.1177/101269097032002001




Comeau, G. S. (2013). The evolution of Canadian sport policy. International Journal of Sport

Policy and Politics, 5(1), 73-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2012.694368

Council of Europe (1992, September 24). The European sports charter. DOCPLAYER.


Criminal Code, R.S.C. (1985), c C-46.

Department for Education. (2013). Working Together to Safeguard Children: A guide to inter-

agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Department for

Education.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_

data/file/942454/Working_together_to_safeguard_children_inter_agency_guidance.pdf



8(1), 33-50.

Dowling, M., & Smith, J. (2016). The institutional work of own the podium in developing high-

performance sport in Canada. Journal of Sport Management, 30, 396-410.

https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2014-0290

Garratt, D., Piper, H., & Taylor, B. (2013). ‘Safeguarding’ sports coaching: Foucault, genealogy

and critique. Sport, Education and Society, 18(5), 615-629.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2012.736861

Green, M. (2004). Changing policy priorities for sport in England: The emergence of elite sport

development as a key policy concern. Leisure Studies, 23(4), 365-385.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0261436042000231646

Green, M. (2007). Olympic glory or grassroots development? Sport policy priorities in Australia,

https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2012.694368


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/942454/Working_together_to_safeguard_children_inter_agency_guidance.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/942454/Working_together_to_safeguard_children_inter_agency_guidance.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2014-0290

https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2012.736861

https://doi.org/10.1080/0261436042000231646


Canada, and the United Kingdom, 1960-2006. The International Journal of the History of

Sport, 24(7), 921-953. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523360701311810

Green, M., & Houlihan, B. (2004). Advocacy coalitions and elite sport policy change in Canada

and the United Kingdom. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 39(4), 387-

403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690204049066



Gurgis, J., & Kerr, G. (2021). Reconceptualizing safe sport: From prevention of harm to

promotion of athlete rights. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Toronto.

Hakansson, G. (1999). What is next? The Swedish experience. Whittier Law Review, 21(1), 251-

255.

Houlihan, B., & Green, M. (2009). Modernization and sport: The reform of Sport England and

UK sport. Public Administration, 87(3), 678-698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

9299.2008.01733.x

International Olympic Committee. (2017). Safeguarding athletes from harassment in sport and

abuse in sport: IOC toolkit for IFs and NOCs. IOC. https://www.iwf.net/wp-

content/uploads/downloads/2018/10/IOC_Safeguarding_Toolkit_ENG.pdf







https://doi.org/10.1080/09523360701311810

https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690204049066

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.01733.x

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.01733.x



https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2019-0016



initiatives in sport contexts. Social Sciences, 3, 742–757.





pdf

Koller, D. L. (2018). A twenty-first century Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. Vanderbilt

Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 20(4), 1027-1072.

Lang, M., & Hartill, M. (2015). Safeguarding, child protection and abuse in sport: International

perspectives in research, policy and practice. Routledge.

Lee, C., Cronley, C., White, H. R., Mun, E., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Loeber, R. (2012).

Racial differences in the consequences of childhood maltreatment for adolescent and

young adult depression, heavy drinking, and violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50,

443-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.09.014

Lopiano, D. A., & Zotos, C. (2015). Athlete welfare and protection policy development in the

USA. In M. Lang & M. Hartill (Eds.), Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in

Sport: International perspectives in research, policy and practice (pp. 97-106).

Routledge.

Martin-Storey, A., Pollitt, A. M., & Baams, L. (2020). Profiles and predictors of dating violence

among sexual and gender minority adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 1-7.


Miller, A. L., & Nakazawa, A. (2015). Who safeguards the child in Japanese sports? In M. Lang







& M. Hartill (Eds.), Safeguarding, child protection and abuse in sport: International



Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 5(1), 25-35.




Munhall, P. (2001). Ethical considerations in qualitative research. In P. Munhall (Ed.), Nursing

research: A qualitative perspective (3rd ed., pp. 537-549). Jones and Bartlett.

Parent, S. (2015). Athlete welfare and safeguarding in sport in Canada. In M. Lang & M. Hartill

(Eds.), Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in Sport: International perspectives in


Porter, M. R., Antonishak, J., & Reppucci, N. D. (2006). Policy and applied definitions of child

maltreatment. In M. Feerick, J. Knutson, P. Trickett, S. Flanzer, & K. Snow (Eds.), Child

abuse and neglect: Definitions, classifications, and a framework

for research (pp. 331–341). Brooks Publishing.

Rhind, D., & Owusu-Sekyere, F. (2018). International safeguards for children in sport


Saint-Martin, D. (2007). From the welfare state to the social investment state? In M. Orsini & M.

Smith (Eds.), Critical policy studies (pp. 279-299). UBC Press.

Solstad, G. M. (2019). Safe sport for all? Exploring safety and safeguarding in Zambian sport.



(978-82-502-0568-0) [Doctoral dissertation, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences].

Norges Idrettshøgskole.

Tang, K. L. (2003). Implementing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child:

The Canadian experience. International Social Work, 46(3), 277-288.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00208728030463002

Thibault, L., & Harvey, J. (1997). Fostering interorganizational linkages in the Canadian sport

delivery system. Journal of Sport Management, 11(1), 45-68.

United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Treaty Series, 1577, 3.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (1994a). Initial reports of States parties

due in 1994 addendum: Canada. United Nations.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (1994b). Initial reports of States parties

due in 1994 addendum: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. United

Nations.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (1995). Concluding observations of the

Committee on the Rights of the Child: Canada. United Nations.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2002). Second periodic report of the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. United Nations.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2003). Concluding observations:

Canada. United Nations.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2008). Third and fourth periodic reports

of States parties due in 2007: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

United Nations.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00208728030463002


United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2012). Concluding observations on the

combined third and fourth periodic report of Canada, adopted by the Committee at its

sixty-first session (17 September – 5 October 2012). United Nations.





Volpe, R., Cox, S., Goddard, L., & Tilleczek, K. (1997). Children’s rights in Canada: A review

of provincial policies. The Dr. R.G.N. Laidlaw Research Centre Institute of Child Study

& Oise, University of Toronto. http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~volpe/rights.html

White, L. A. (2014). Understanding Canada’s lack of progress in implementing the UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child: The intergovernmental dynamics of children’s

policy making in Canada. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 22, 164-188.


http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~volpe/rights.html


255

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION

Amongst several national and international sport organizations, safe sport has evolved to

represent the efforts taken to prevent athlete maltreatment in sport. However, the absence of a

universal safe sport definition (Kerr et al., 2020), failed policy enforcement (Donnelly et al.,

2016), a lack of empirically driven education (Kerr et al., 2014), and the normalized use of

harmful coaching practices (David, 2005; Gervis & Dunn, 2004; Stebbings et al., 2011) renders

safe sport ineffectual. Consequently, the maltreatment of athletes continues to be a pervasive

issue affecting sport globally (Alexander et al., 2011; Kerr et al. 2019; Lang & Hartill, 2015),

along with several other physical safety concerns, such as concussion (Guskiewicz et al., 2014),

injuries (Rühlemann et al., 2019), and punishment (Kerr et al., 2016) as well as cultural safety

concerns, such as a culture of silence (Kirby et al., 2000) or reinforcement of performance-

related values such as winning and specialization (Kerr & Stirling, 2014), which have been

associated with harmful sport experiences. As such, despite efforts to enhance safety through

safe sport, sport, ironically, remains unsafe. To-date, there is a dearth of research exploring the

developing field of safe sport. As such, we have limited understanding of safe sport’s impact on

the sport community, the effects of safe sport on individual stakeholder groups, and the

perceptions of safe sport held by stakeholders in sport. To fill these knowledge gaps, the

following thesis sought to understand how stakeholders in sport conceptualize and experience

safe sport and their recommendations for advancing it.

In study one, a constructivist grounded theory methodology was used to explore how

stakeholders in sport, including athletes, coaches, sport administrators, and researchers,

conceptualize safe sport. The findings revealed additional interpretations that expands current

conceptions of abuse-free sport; specifically, in addition to protecting athletes from acts of


maltreatment, the participants suggested safe sport includes protecting individuals from physical

harm that stems from an unsafe environment or the use of faulty equipment, and the promotion

of a rights-based culture of sport, described as being inclusive, accessible, fair, and safe. The

findings were interpreted through a safeguarding lens to propose a framework of safeguarding

sport to be used in place of safe sport. Safeguarding sport would fill the current gap in discourses

of safe sport that fail to consider the importance of promoting human rights as a means of

safeguarding athletes from harm.

There is a plethora of research in and out of sport that confirms that individuals from

equity-deserving groups are at increased risk of experiencing harm; however, as it relates to safe

sport, there is an absence of research that explores the interpretations and experiences of safe

sport through an intersectional lens. As such, study two sought to understand how athletes with

under-represented identities conceptualize and experience safe sport. The study was designed as

an interpretive phenomenological analysis, and included semi-structured interviews with seven

diverse participants, including: two Black, heterosexual male athletes, two White, gay male

athletes, one Middle Eastern, heterosexual female athlete, one White, heterosexual, physically

disabled athlete, and one White, non-binary, queer, physically disabled athlete. The findings

revealed that athletes with under-represented identities are susceptible to verbal and non-verbal

acts of discrimination, with specific athletes perceiving themselves as more vulnerable because

of their inability to hide the characteristics that render them oppressed (e.g., Black athletes or

physically disabled athletes). Consequently, the athletes questioned whether safe sport was an

attainable standard for those identifying with equity-deserving groups. Recommendations are

made for sport organizations to adopt an intersectional lens in developing safe sport initiatives,

grounded in fundamental rights of inclusion, safety, and accessibility.


The final study utilized a constructivist grounded theory methodology to explore sport

administrators’ recommendations for advancing safe sport. Sport administrators reportedly have

a critical role in contributing towards the advancement of safety within a sport organization.

Thirteen sport administrators participated in a semi-structured interview and recommended that

sport organisations establish a universal framework of safe sport, design and implement

education, implement and enforce policies, establish independent monitoring and complaint

mechanisms, and conduct research to ensure advancement strategies are current and applicable.

Based upon the findings, a framework for advancing safeguarding sport has been constructed to

ensure the advancement strategies are developed and informed by positive, rights-based values.

In conclusion, safeguarding sport is a complex, umbrella term that encompasses several

areas related to the welfare and protection of stakeholders in sport. Based upon the findings from

these three studies, safe sport ought to be replaced by safeguarding sport, to represent the

cultivation of a safe, inclusive, accessible, welcoming sport environment that functions to

safeguard every individual from all forms of maltreatment and sport-related harms and

contributes to the actualization of human rights. To establish an organizational culture of

safeguarding sport, all members of the organization, including athletes and coaches, must be

aware of what safeguarding sport is and contribute to the operationalization of safeguarding sport

within the sport organization. Sport organizations have an obligation to employ strategies that

reflect the perspectives of diverse participants from different stakeholder groups to ensure their

needs are actualized in the development of safeguarding sport programmes and action plans

(Hartill & Lang, 2015). Finally, the integration of human rights is key in developing and

advancing safeguarding sport. The development and integration of human rights represents a

historic struggle for equity, opportunity, and freedom. To ensure these rights are no longer


infringed upon within the reactive efforts of safe sport, sport organizations must proactively

prioritize and assimilate human rights into their advancement strategies to ensure all stakeholders

in sport are aware of their fundamental right to experience safeguarding sport.


References



David, P. (2005). Human Rights in Youth Sport: A critical review of children’s rights in




8(1), 33-50.



Guskiewicz, K., Teel, E., & McCrea, M. (2014). Concussion: Key stakeholders and

multidisciplinary participation in making sports safe. Neurosurgery, 75(4), s113-s118.

https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000494

Hartill, M., & Lang, M. (2015). Conclusion. In M. Lang & M. Hartill (Eds.), Safeguarding,

Child Protection and Abuse in Sport: International perspectives in research, policy and

practice (pp. 192-202). Routledge.

Kerr, G., Kidd, B., & Donnelly, P. (2020). Advancing Safe Sport in Canada: A Statement on

'Independence' -- What it means and what it should look like in practice. Centre for Sport

Policy Studies Position Paper. Centre for Sport Policy Studies, Faculty of Kinesiology

and Physical Education, University of Toronto.

Kerr, G. & Stirling, A. (2014). Applying Ecological Systems Theory to the issue of athlete abuse

in sport. In R. J. Schinke & K. McGannon (Eds.). The psychology of sub-culture in sport

and physical activity: A critical approach (pp. 17-30). Psychology Press.

https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000494



initiatives in sport contexts. Social Sciences, 3(4), 742–757.

Kerr, G., Stirling, A., MacPherson, E., Banwell, J., Bandealy, A., & Preston, C. (2016).

Exploring the use of exercise as punishment in sport. International Journal of Coaching

Science, 10(2), 35-53.




pdf

Kirby, S., Greaves, L., & Hankivsky, O. (2000). The dome of silence: Sexual harassment and

abuse in sport. Halifax, Canada: Fernwood Publishing.

Lang, M., & Hartill, M. (2015). Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in Sport:

International perspectives in research, policy and practice. Routledge.

Rühlemann, A., Mayer, C., Goette, L., Behringer, M., & Jäger, M. (2019). Functional knee

stability in handball: An indispensable criterion for safe sport. Sportverletzung,

Sportschaden, 33(2), 87-95.

Stebbings, J., Taylor, I., & Spray, C. (2011). Antecedents of perceived coach autonomy

supportive and controlling behaviors: Coach psychological need satisfaction and well-

being. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33(1), 255-272.




FIGURES

Figure 1. Safe Sport Framework.

This figure illustrates the most common organizational conceptualization of safe sport.


Figure 2. Safeguarding Sport Framework.

This figure illustrates the recommended conceptualization of safeguarding sport to be used in

place of safe sport.


Figure 3. Prevention of Harm Framework for Safe Sport.

This figure illustrates how current advancement strategies are designed to reinforce a framework

of safe sport, characterized by the prevention of harm.


Figure 4. Values-Based Framework for Safeguarding Sport.

This figure suggests advancement strategies should be designed to reinforce a framework of

safeguarding sport, characterized by the prevention of harm and promotion of values.


APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Stakeholders’ Recruitment Email

Dear Participant,

My name is Joseph Gurgis, and I am a Ph.D. Candidate in the Faculty of Kinesiology at the

University of Toronto. I am conducting a study exploring perceptions of safe-sport and coach

development and request your participation.

Should you agree to participate, you will be required to participate in a 30-60 minute in-person

or telephone semi-structured interview that will explore your perceptions of various safe-sport

topics as well as coach development/education. Participation in the interview is completely

voluntary and your responses will remain confidential. You may withdraw from the study

without penalty up until one month after the interview.

Should you have any questions about the study, please feel free to contact me at 416-892-0323 or

through email: [email protected].

Sincerely,

Joseph Gurgis

mailto:[email protected]


APPENDIX B: Letter of Information

Dear Participant,

You are invited to participate in a research study that will explore your perceptions of safe-sport

and how information on safe-sport can be effectively taught to coaches. Please read the

information below, and feel free to ask questions before deciding to consent.

Study Objective:

Conversations on safe-sport have been prevalent of lately; however, the conceptualization of

what safe-sport entails has differed among researchers and practitioners. Many organizations,

such as the Coaching Association of Canada (CAC), the Canadian Centre for Child Protection

(CCCP), SafeSport USA, Play by the Rules (PBTR), and the International Olympic Committee

(IOC) provide coaches with education on safe-sport; the concerns lie in the inconsistency of

topics addressed, which would suggest there is a lack of understanding when defining safe-sport.

Different perspectives on safe sport can negatively impact athletes’ experiences in sport, who are

coached by differently trained coaches. Moreover, the poor design and delivery of most coach

education programmes suggest coach development is already negatively impacted. The

significant gap in education, specifically around the area of safe sport, suggests this area requires

further attention. Thus, the purpose of this study is to develop a theoretical framework that

defines safe-sport and to inquire about the most effective methods of training coaches on this

topic.

Description of the Research

The study will require you to participate in a 30-60-minute interview, discussing your views on

safe-sport and coach education.

Participation

Participation in this study is voluntary. You may refuse to participate or withdraw from this

study at any time with no penalty. If you do withdraw from the study, information acquired up to

point of withdrawal will remain confidential and will not be included in the researcher’s data

analysis.

Potential Harms, Injuries, Discomforts, or Inconveniences

There are no direct short-term or long-term risks anticipated as a result of participation in this

project. In the event that you feel uncomfortable discussing a specific topic throughout the

interview, you may decline to answer questions, pause the interview, reschedule the interview, or

cease participation in the study without penalty. There are no anticipated risks regarding your

interaction with me during the interview.

Potential Benefits

Your participation is integral, as it may eventually contribute to the development of Canada’s

first ever humanistic coaching module. Reflecting on and discussing your thoughts may also help

you gain valuable insight towards your own practices as an educator or practitioner.

Privacy and Confidentially


All personal identifying information disclosed during the interview will remain confidential

through the use of a pseudonym. Any data collected during the study (e.g., audio recordings or

fieldnotes) will be identified using the assigned pseudonym. Additionally, any data collected

with potentially identifying information will be stored on the researcher’s password protected

computer. Only when disclosures of maltreatment occur is confidentiality not protected, as by

law, the researcher is required to report any occurrences of maltreatment.

Compensation

There is no compensation for participating in this study.

The study will be conducted by Joseph Gurgis, a Ph.D. Candidate in the Graduate Department of

Exercise Sciences at the University of Toronto. This study will be conducted under the

supervision of Dr. Gretchen Kerr, Professor and Vice Dean, Programs, School of Graduate

Studies. If you have any question or concerns about the study, please do not hesitate to contact

Joseph Gurgis at [email protected] or Gretchen Kerr, Ph.D. at

[email protected]. More specifically, if at any time you have any questions or concerns

about your rights as a research participant, please contact the Research Ethics & Review Board at

the University of Toronto at [email protected] or (416) 946-3273.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Joseph Gurgis


APPENDIX C: Consent Form

Please provide your consent to participate in the study and return the form to the researcher

either in person or via email. Also, please keep a separate copy for your records, in case you

wish to review this form at a later date.

By signing this form, I agree that:

• The purpose and objectives of this study have been clearly explained to me.

• Any questions that I asked have been answered to my satisfaction.

• The possible harms and discomforts, as well as the possible benefits of this study have

been explained to me.

• I understand my right to participate or withdraw from this study at any time.

• The decision whether or not to participate will not result in penalty.

• I am free now, and in the future, to ask any questions about the study by contacting the

investigators, or the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board whose phone number

is found on the previous page.

• I have been assured that records will be kept confidential and that no identifying

information will be released or printed in the future without my permission.

• All data (e.g., audio, electronic and paper copies) will be kept until full analyses have

been performed and research has been completed.

• I have read and understand the information above and have had the opportunity to ask

any questions. I hereby give consent to participate in this study.

Participant’s Name

________________________________________

Participant’s Signature

________________________________________

Date

________________________________________


APPENDIX D: Athletes’ Interview Guide

1. Icebreaker questions: How long have you been competing in your sport?

2. Have you ever felt unsafe in your sport? Explain.

3. How would you define safety?

4. How would you define safe sport?

5. How did you come to understand safe sport?

6. What topics are included and excluded from your definition of safe sport? (i.e.,

maltreatment, punishment, injury prevention, physical safety, etc.).

7. Is your definition of safe sport based upon your own experiences? Or is this a

definition that has been communicated to you from a coach or administrator?

8. Is your definition of safe sport attainable? Does it apply to all levels of sport or

specific levels?

9. Do you think other stakeholders, such as coaches or researchers, would interpret safe

sport similarly?

10. Who is responsible for ensuring sport is safe?

11. What is your responsibility to ensure sport is safe?

12. What resources or support would you need to create a safe sport environment for your

teammates?

13. Does the term safe sport encompass your perspectives on what it means? If not, why?

14. Safe participation in sport is a basic human right. If safety is a fundamental human

right, then why do we need to plea with certain stakeholders to behave in ways that

are reflective of safe sport? E.g., why do we need to beg coaches not to abuse athletes

through excessive exercise as punishment?


15. Do you believe you’ve had abusive experiences with coaches? With teammates?

16. How have you responded to these experiences? Any long-term effects of these

experiences?

17. Who do you think was responsible for protecting you?

18. What are your ideas for protecting athletes from this harm moving forward?


APPENDIX E: Coaches’ Interview Guide

1. Icebreaker questions: What is your role in sport? How long have you had this role?

Do you have any sport/coaching specific education and/or training? Please describe.

2. Have you ever felt unsafe in sport?


4. How would you define safe sport? Or, what does it mean to be safe in sport?

5. What topics are included and excluded from your definition of safe sport? (i.e.,


6. Does the term safe sport encompass your perspectives on what it means? If not, why?

7. How did you come to understand the concept of safe sport?


specific levels?

9. Do you think other stakeholders, such as athletes or administrators, would interpret

safe sport similarly?


11. How would you know if a coach was not demonstrating safe sport behaviours? Was

demonstrating safe sport behaviours?

12. Are there certain ways that coaches learn about safe sport? Are these methods

effective?

13. Who else is responsible for ensuring sport is safe?


athletes?


15. If safety is a fundamental human right, then why do we need to plea with certain

stakeholders to behave in ways that are reflective of safe sport? E.g., why do we need

to beg coaches not to abuse athletes through excessive exercise as punishment?

a. Why is it so difficult to incorporate safe sport principles and to get people to

behave in ways that are consistent with safe sport?


APPENDIX F: Sport Administrators’ Interview Guide

1. Icebreaker questions: What is your role in sport? How long have you had this role?


3. How would you define safe sport? Or, what does it mean to be safe in sport?

4. What topics are included and excluded from your definition of safe sport? (i.e.




specific levels?

7. Do you think other stakeholders, such as coaches or athletes, would interpret safe

sport similarly?


9. How would you know if a sports program was upholding/not upholding the values of

safe sport?

10. How do administrators, coaches, and athletes learn about safe sport?

11. Who else is responsible for ensuring sport is safe?


athletes?

13. What is required to foster a safe sport environment for all participants? (E.g., extra

education, policies, awareness campaigns, help lines, safety officers, etc.).

14. Is there a better term that can be used to describe safe sport?



stakeholders to behave in ways that are reflective of safe sport? E.g., why do we need





APPENDIX G: Researchers’ Interview Guide

1. Icebreaker questions: Can you describe to me what your research entails? How long

have you been conducting research in your area?

2. How would you interpret the concept of safety in sport?

3. Given your definition of safety, how would you define safe sport?

4. What topics are included and excluded from your definition of safe sport? (i.e.



6. What are your thoughts on the safe sport movement? (Preface question with

explanation of the evolvement of sport - https://sportforlife.ca/blog/minister-kirsty-

duncans-announcement-advances-quality-sport/)

7. Why do you think safe sport has been such a relevant topic of discussion lately?

8. What elements need to be considered in future research of safe sport?

9. What theories would you speculate to be relevant when studying safe sport?

10. Is there a better term that can be used to describe safe sport?


stakeholders to behave in ways that are reflective of safe sport? E.g. why do we need




https://sportforlife.ca/blog/minister-kirsty-duncans-announcement-advances-quality-sport/

https://sportforlife.ca/blog/minister-kirsty-duncans-announcement-advances-quality-sport/

conceptualizing and advancing safe sport - tspace

Documents