The Power Paradigm – from Organizational to Athlete Centricity

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Written by Anton Klischewski, founder of Project PRESFUL.

___

The Larry Nassar case in US Gymnastics which reached a worldwide audience through the Netflix documentary “Athlete A” has drastically shown that sexual, physical and psychological abuse of (young) athletes and the subsequent cover-up of a sporting federation can be maintained for over two decades without coming to light.

A recent study by the World Players Association underlines the fundamental issue that the internationally recognized human rights of athletes are currently not embedded in the sporting industry. The question remains whether athletes receive sufficient support after maltreatment as well as access to effective remedy in and through sport. Being at the forefront of athlete rights, the World Player Association is advocating for enhanced rights and major changes to the way sport is run. In 2017, the organization unveiled the Universal Declaration of Player Rights, highlighting the roles of sports bodies and states in preventing and addressing impacts on players‘ human rights, based on the UN Guiding Principles.

Athlete-centricity in safeguarding

Furthermore, there is a lack of research if current safeguarding programmes (efforts to prevent maltreatment in sport) are effective in achieving their goal of protecting athlete welfare and preventing maltreatment.

Effective safeguarding programmes are designed as athlete-centric. In spite of the numerous well-recognised benefits of sports participation, evidence indicates that harassment and abuse occurs in all sports and at all levels. Current legal frameworks often lead to a lack of designated responsibility. An absence of a binding and standing human rights policy and capacity across international sports and, as a consequence, no recourse to dispute resolution through such channels make cases related to human rights difficult to handle both for organizations and affected athletes.

Flaws in the system

This becomes obvious when looking at the initial response in the US which followed the Nassar case: the set-up of the Center for SafeSport in 2017. On the one hand, this is an important step towards a trustworthy, credible and widely communicated point of contact for those affected and their environment. On the other hand, it was later reported that the institution was underfunded and lacked the resources to deal with the amounts of cases reported to it by the athletes, among other institutional flaws. Organizations that are currently advocating for a national Center for SafeSport in their respective countries, such as the independent athlete organization ‘Athleten Deutschland’ from Germany, will need to learn from these developments – and find an appropriate solution between responsibilities on the State/sport/athlete side! 

Promising developments

As part of its efforts to promote athletes’ safety and enhance whistleblower protection, the IOC released the resource ‘Safeguarding athletes from harassment and abuse in sport – IOC Toolkit for IFs and NOCs’ to mitigate potential human rights violations in an early stage. In addition to that, the IOC has recently launched the ‘International Safeguarding Officer in Sport Certificate’ and is now accepting applications for its first cohort. This shows that the topic of athlete rights is on the top of the agenda for the biggest sporting organization worldwide, but it also needs independent research in order to influence international and national athlete welfare education, policy, and practice. To make sure that athletes from different backgrounds, different disciplines and with and without a disability are consulted. To show them that they are listened to and more importantly: they are heard!

Interested in contributing?

Check our Author Guidelines.