In the evolving landscape of sport, safeguarding against violence, harassment, and abuse is more than a checkbox—it’s a cornerstone of trust. If we are to explore issues of governance and compliance with international safe sport frameworks/codes/regulations, a fundamental question concerns the approach taken: is safeguarding in and through sport primarily a public health issue or an integrity concern?
In our latest SSI perspective, COO Neal Anderson explores why the answer might be both and how embracing a dual perspective can ensure sport remains a safe and positive force for all.
Introduction
In recent months, the governance and regulation of safeguarding in sport has been gaining prominence as a topic of discussion within the sector. Harassment or abuse does not directly impact on sport in the same way that doping and match-fixing does however, it is clear that sport must actively undertake all measures to prevent violence, harassment, or abuse to children or adults in sport and all recognition, reporting, response, and remedy activities required to respond to actual or potential abuse or harmful behaviour.
Calls for mechanisms for monitoring globally applied human rights principles and shared sporting values to protect participants are not new. They can be seen in the recent recommendation for the development of “Universal safeguarding codes and an international surveillance system with platforms for reporting, case management, sanctions and recompense” within the IOC Consensus Statement paper (Tuakli-Wosornu et al., 2024) as well as within the Safe Sport International Declaration in 2015 stating “that the sports movement should set up a mechanism to monitor and quality assure compliance by all NOCs and international federations with the Safe Sport International Principles” (Brackenridge, 2015).
Ensuring safe and inclusive environments is vital for maintaining public confidence in sport as a positive societal force that can uplift and unite people. Thanks to partners throughout the world who share a concern for safe sport and a commitment to collaborative action, we are not starting from zero. As well as International Safe Sport Principles (SSI, 2014), a set of clear structures and responsibilities that governments, major event organisers and sport organisations can compel alignment with and monitor already exists in the International Safeguards for Children in Sport (Multiple partners, 2014) and the International Safeguards for Adults in Sport (SSI, 2023). Though initially written and designed to be implemented at a club, project or organisational level, the International Safeguards framework has also been developed, tested and adapted to a national level and through utilising a multi-agency process (2020 Council of Europe Child Safeguarding in Sport Project). These guidelines provide a robust starting point for establishing an international framework, code, or regulations for safe sport within which implementation can be monitored and evaluated.
However, if we are to explore issues of governance and compliance with international safe sport frameworks/codes/regulations, a fundamental question concerns the approach taken: is safeguarding in and through sport primarily a public health issue or an integrity concern?
A Public Health Approach to Safeguarding
A public health approach to safeguarding in and through sport focuses on protecting and improving the health of children or adults participating in sporting activities. This starts with establishing safe, inclusive sporting environments and includes all activities that contribute to reducing or ending interpersonal violence, harassment, and abuse. This perspective recognises:
- Widespread Impact: Interpersonal violence in all its forms (harassment, physical, psychological, sexual, neglect, and hazing, bulllying and grooming) in sport affects individuals and causes harm to children and to adults (and to sport itself) at all levels, from grassroots participants to elite athletes and their entourages, with ripple effects on families and communities. Research estimates Between 44% and 86% of participants will experience interpersonal violence at least once in their sports career (Tuakli-Wosornu et al., 2024). It is everyone’s responsibility to ensure safe, inclusive, enjoyable sporting environments.
- Prevention First: The public health approach emphasises using proactive measures, such as good practice, research, education, policies, and interventions, to protect and improve the safety of people and their communities. Prevention must include listening to those who have experienced harm and safeguarding professionals to truly understand where systems are failing.
- Systemic Approach: Cross-sector multi-disciplinary collaboration between organisations, governments, public authorities, and civil society is integral to a public health approach. Safe sport cannot be achieved by sports organisations alone, ‘Sport is not a sacred space’ (Brackenridge, 2001). If we see interpersonal violence as a societal issue that is contextualised in sport, we have to take a cross-sector, multi-agency and multi-disciplinary approach to effectively tackle the problem
An Integrity Approach to Safeguarding
From an integrity standpoint, upholding the ethics and values that underpin fair play and respect to ensure sport remains unaffected by corruption, doping, or match-fixing, can also safeguard athletes, coaches, and officials both on and off the field. With an emphasis on personal responsibility, deterrence and accountability, this approach features:
- Moral Responsibility: Sport organisations and leaders have a moral obligation to uphold fair play and protect participants from harm. When policies and procedures fail to be upheld in practice the cost is borne by individual victims/survivors and other affected persons. The integrity approach must consider the consequences for individuals of long-term negative physical, psychological and behavioural outcomes (Tuakli-Wosornu et al., 2024).
- Governance and Accountability: Clear rules, robust policies, transparent investigations, and consequences for misconduct are central to the integrity approach. Agreed and mandated international frameworks/codes/regulations for safe sport are essential tools for prevention and response.
- Hierarchical Structure: The integrity approach puts structures and systems in place that facilitate remedy. For those who raise a concern, this must mean that experiences will be taken seriously, the systems and processes they contact with are trauma- and violence- informed, and that those responsible will be held accountable.
Similarities and Differences in Approaches to Safeguarding
Bridging the Perspectives
Sport, when delivered in the right hands, has a positive societal impact, and everyone has the right to enjoy participating in it safely, free from violence, harassment, abuse and harm. While the public health and integrity perspectives can be seen as distinct positions, they are not mutually exclusive. For example, a situation where a child athlete is made to take a banned substance would be both a safe sport and a doping issue. The best response for this and other complex situations must surely be to implement effective safeguarding strategies to address both immediate and longer-term needs. Remedy is one area where integrating public health, integrity, and other perspectives is essential for ensuring holistic, comprehensive solutions; “healing must take place, justice must be done, and the organization must learn constructively from the case” (Tuakli-Wosornu, Kirby, Tiivas and Rhind, 2023).
A Wicked Problem
Facilitating agreed and mandated international principles, standards and safeguards will rely on collaboration and the inclusion of multiple and diverse perspectives and voices. Viewing safeguarding in sport as a complex ‘wicked problem’ highlights its complexity – “every problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem”, “solutions are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad”, “no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution”(Rittel & Webber, 1973). A particularly relevant feature of a wicked problem is “the choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution.” An international framework of regulations may align with the integrity perspective, but a public health approach may well be better suited to effectively responding to problems posed by interconnected, contextual, invisible, unreported, or cross-jurisdictional safeguarding concerns.
Cultural Bias
Taking a global perspective and addressing the needs of culture, context and those made more vulnerable by discrimination, oppression and lack of voice aligns with both preventing harm (public health) and upholding ethical standards (integrity). We must be mindful of the dominance of a historic global north expertise base and potential issues of colonialism leading to cultural disparities in defining good practice. A public health approach can inform systems and processes that prioritise safe environments and harm prevention, while the integrity approach can ensure these systems and processes are enforced with transparency and accountability.
Person Centred
Applying same investigative / disciplinary procedures used for integrity issues such as corruption, doping, or match-fixing, to safeguarding concerns risks victims/survivors being caused further harm as they progress through quasi court processes. A public health approach allows the knowledge and experiences of interpersonal violence and harm to be fully considered in adapting and designing processes that centre the needs of victims/survivors. Embedding the principles of trauma- and violence- informed care into practice, and ensuring survivors feel believed, acknowledged, safe, and empowered (Mountjoy et al, 2022) as they contribute to developments in systems and processes is critical.
Specialised Skillsets
The range of core skills and experience required to address safeguarding concerns are different from those needed to address mainstream integrity issues. The integrity perspective requires a set of professional skills that include ethical decision-making, regulatory knowledge, investigative expertise, and effective communication. A public health approach values skills such as community education, empathy, crisis-management, and multi-disciplinary collaboration. If safeguarding is to integrate both public health and integrity perspectives, we must ensure those with safeguarding responsibility have the necessary education, training, and experience to navigate the complex and distinct areas of their role.
Conclusion
Safeguarding in and through sport is both a public health and an integrity concern. Viewing it solely through one lens risks neglecting critical aspects of the problem and limiting the effectiveness of solutions. A risk-management approach with a dual focus on prevention and accountability not only supports the well-being of individuals but also ensures that sport remains a safe and trusted space for everyone. Integrating public health, integrity and other perspectives will be crucial for ensuring that sport remains a positive force in society, capable of uplifting and uniting people.
About the Author
Neal Anderson, COO of Safe Sport International, has over 25 years of experience safeguarding the well-being and mental health of individuals in sports and outdoor activities. As a UKCP Registered Psychotherapist, community sports coach, and holder of a Masters in Sports Management from Loughborough University, Neal is committed to developing robust safe sport standards and guidance. He has significant experience in leadership, outdoor therapy, applied research, and professional standards development across outdoor and adventure sports.