Safeguarding in sports settings: unpacking a conflicting identity

Abstract

Safeguarding is a major area of research, policy, and practice for contemporary sports scholars, practitioners, and stakeholders. In recent years, the concept of safeguarding (broadly: the prevention of harassment and abuse) as applied to sport settings has expanded to include not only sexual harassment and abuse, but also individual (e.g. disordered eating; self-harm), relational (e.g. psychological, physical, sexual harassment and abuse), and organisational (e.g. systemic discrimination; medical mismanagement) forms of violence. In 2016 the International Olympic Committee published its landmark Consensus Statement on non-accidental violence (harassment and abuse) in sport (IOCCS). Concomitantly, sports organisations have increasingly regulated women's eligibility through 'female eligibility policies' under the premise of safeguarding. This is particularly exemplified by World Athletics' 2019 Female Eligibility Regulation (WAFER). The WAFER, however, has received substantial critique, particularly in terms of the systemic discrimination and medical harm that it has been shown to enact on certain groups of marginalised women. In this article, we undertake a comparative document analysis to evaluate female eligibility regulations within the framework of contemporary sport safeguarding policy and practice. Our analysis finds that safeguarding, especially with regard to 'fairness' and women athletes, adopts a conflicting identity due to three primary reasons: (1) lack of organisational accountability; (2) focusing on interpersonal harms rather than systemic violence; and (3) attention to science over athlete voice. As such, we conclude by urging a critical re-examination of the conceptualisation and implementation of safeguarding, positioning organisational violence enacted through female eligibility policies as a sports safeguarding issue.

Inclusion, fairness and non-discrimination in sport: a wider lens

“…In response to the IOC framework,5 the International Federation of Sports Medicine and European Federation of Sports Medicine Associations argued that ‘if an athlete is fully informed and consents, then it is their free choice to undergo carefully considered or necessary interventions for gender classification for sport to compete fairly and safely in their chosen gender’ 9. We argue that for an athlete under duress with the threat of non-participation at hand, this is not ‘consent’ but rather ‘coercion’, and this approach opens a dangerous door towards invasive examinations and potential abuse, especially for athletes of younger age 10…”

Defining ‘woman': A governmentality analysis of how protective policies are created in elite women's sport

“…As Flick (2006) notes, “the issue of confidentiality or anonymity may become problematic when you do research with several members of a specific setting” (50). Creating protective policies for elite sport is such a milieu considering the close-knit and small community of researchers, scientists, and academics (see Bekker and Posbergh, 2021). While all policy authors are publicly listed (and indeed, was the primary means through which potential participants were identified), I intentionally anonymize their names given that,the disclosure of information and accounts provided by participants in some cases could potentially expose them to retaliation from others in the policy sphere, embarrassment, potential job loss, or compromise organisational partnerships, damage relationships and jeopardise delicately balanced politicised policy processes underway (Lancaster, 2017: 99)All participants concurrently hold academic, research, medical, or administrative positions, and have personal lives.…”

“…As such, questions remain around what types of evidence and contexts contribute to specific protective policies. To this end, Bekker and Posbergh (2021) recently investigated how safe sport policies can coexist in the same milieu as female eligibility policies. Through a document analysis of the IOC's 2014 consensus statement on harassment and abuse and WA's 2019 female eligibility policy, they found a general lack of attention to organizational accountability and violence in favour of individual interactions, as well as erasing athlete voice in lieu of scientific evidence (13).…”

“…Despite challenges from Caster Semenya and Athletics South Africa (ASA), in May 2019, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)-sport's highest ethical court-ruled that the policy was discriminatory, but of "necessary, reasonable and proportionate means" (CAS, 2019: 160). In response, athletes such as Semenya and Annet Negesa disclosed their traumatic experiences to attain previous eligibility standards, which included gonadectomy, unnecessary hormone treatments, and years of pain (Bekker and Posbergh, 2021). Nonetheless, the policy remains in effect today.…”

“…In this article, I take up Bekker and Posbergh's (2021) call to explore the nuances of protective policies, including the importance they place on sex differences. In doing so, this project necessarily contributes to the paucity of literature that examines protective policies as a broad category.…”