"

1 Introduction

Julie Stevens

Welcome to Safe Sport: Critical Issues and Practices, 2nd Edition!

I am excited to share this second edition edited book on safe sport with you!

It’s been three years since I first released Safe Sport: Critical Issues and Practices and the structures and practices within the safe sport domain have become even more dynamic. To capture this change, I embraced the open education principle of sustainability to produce this revised resource.

This version is an accumulated collection that integrates original and new chapters. This version includes 23 chapters from 24 contributors across academic and professional realms. The book addresses athlete, governance, human rights, legal, organizational, coaching, officiating, and parasport issues, as well as insightful philosophical commentary.

The creation of this open education resource (OER) was driven by a compelling necessity to ensure safe sport experiences for all athletes within all contexts.

During the past few years, I have had the pleasure to organize or participate in a variety of events intended to build dialogue about safe sport. In every case, each event stakeholders – as my fellow event organizers, the speakers and of course – the attendees – were unified around two key priorities: First – that athletes be at the forefront of the discussion – and second, that enhanced awareness and education be an outcome of our collaboration at these events!

The numerous discussions I experienced conveyed the passion people have about the positive value of sport to Canadians and their communities. Everyone is driven by a desire to ensure a safe sport experience for all. At the same time, though, people associate negative values to the sport system, such as entrenched structures and practices that are very difficult – maybe event too difficult – to change. As a result, the path forward feels uncertain.

The “Empty Chair”: Focusing Upon an Athlete-Centred Approach

The ‘Empty Chair’ approach resonates with me and stirred thoughts about how it might guide safe sport innovation within the Canadian sport system. The lens made me think of ways a consistent positioning of the athlete – which in sport is the central customer – at the forefront of decision-making might enhance safe sport. What if an empty chair is placed at the table at every meeting where sport leaders make decisions in order to ensure the athlete is top-of-mind?

""
Photo by USAG- Humphreys on Flickr

As someone who has held several roles in sport, including scholar, volunteer, coach, official, parent, advocate and most importantly, athlete, I have tried to cultivate a safe and respectful environment when I engage with others through sport. Finding a way to keep this focus at the forefront was a personal endeavour. But during a recent strategic planning session I attended, I learned about a perspective that Jeff Bezos has implemented in Amazon for a very long time – aptly described as the “One Empty Chair Rule.”[1] The rule ensures that an empty chair is placed at the table in order to make certain the customer is top-of-mind at every company meeting.[2] Bezos refers to his mantra as “customer obsession”.

The “Empty Chair” approach resonated with me and stirred thoughts about how it might guide safe sport innovation within the Canadian sport system. The lens made me think of ways a consistent positioning of the athlete – which in sport is the central stakeholder – at the forefront of decision-making might enhance safe sport. What if an empty chair is placed at the table at every meeting where sport leaders make decisions in order to ensure the athlete is top-of-mind?

Athlete-centredness is not new to the sport conversation. In the 2000s, criticism grew over the excessive bureaucracy, corporatization, and results-based orientation of the Canadian high- performance sport system. Calls for change, such as the introduction of athlete-centred initiatives have been made within the Canadian sport system.[3] The discussion has expanded into various areas of sport, such as anti-doping policy, and beyond the Canadian border to engage a global dialogue[4]and competition at the international level.[5] Further, arguments for a ‘deliberate democracy’ lens were raised as a concept that might counter power imbalance within the sport system and open the door for athletes to engage in decision-making.[6]

""
Photo by Major Tom Agency on Unsplash

Extending upon the notion of power, the politics of athlete-centredness in a sport system has been examined in the context of performance enhancement drugs resulting in claims that anti-doping policy development fails to include athletes as policymakers.[7] More recent work connects athlete input with sustainable elite sport in relation to coaching, holistic perspectives, and the co-creation of an athlete’s overall development.[8]Interestingly, a review of athlete representation within the decision-making forum of major sport event properties has revealed that Paralympic athletes have a vote through the International Paralympic Committee Athlete Council, whereas the voting representation of Olympic Games and Commonwealth Games athletes is not as evident.[9]

While these works demonstrate how athlete-centredness has been addressed over the past 20 years, the difference now is momentum – the sport community seems far more resolute about hearing from athletes with respect to their view of a safe sport experience.

The Canadian Sport System and the Challenge of Change

The Canadian sport system we experience today is the product of over 50 years of evolution. Technically – the structures, practices and values of Canadian sport track as far back as pre-Confederation, which is over 150 years ago. But for the sake of this discussion, let’s explore the sport system as it has evolved since 1961 because that is when the federal government formally addressed Canadian sport and recreation through new legislation, called the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act (Bill C-131).

In their book, Game Planners: Transforming Canada’s Sport System, Donald Macintosh and David Whitson noted the dramatic change in the relationship between sport and the federal government from 1960 to 1990.[10] They argued that sport in Canada had been transformed through the increasing focus upon high performance sport structures and the bureaucratization of national sport organizations (NSOs).

Subsequent research by Kikulis, Slack and Hinings extended the discussion by explaining a system-wide trend towards a more professional and bureaucratic design of NSOs, that gravitated towards a common, institutionally specific set of organizational designs.[11] Later, Danisman, Hinings and Slack found very little variation in design existed across Canadian NSOs, and referred to this as the ‘monolithic adoption’ of institutional structures and values similar to those Macintosh and Whitson initially critiqued.[12]

Given the entrenched nature of the Canadian sport system, understanding how to implement radical change within an institutionalized context is key when asking the question – How can we transform sport so it is safe for all?

Athletes and other participants operate within different kinds of organizations that exist within a much broader, institutionalized sport system. In order to explore how these sport organization might change it is helpful to draw upon a framework that identifies factors that influence change and the steps that must be completed for successful change to happen.

Figure 1.1 portrays a modified version of a “Model for Understanding Organizational Change” initially developed by Royston Greenwood and Bob Hinings.[13] The model includes:

  1. Exogenous Factors (external) – market and institutional contexts that exert pressure upon an organization. In the case of organizations within the Canadian sport system, and as per the research noted above, this pressure leads organizations to adopt designs with similar structures and processes.
  2. Endogenous Factors (internal) – fit two kinds of intra-organizational dynamics:
    1. Precipitating Dynamics include ‘interests” and “value commitment”; groups within an organization normally align with each other’s and the organization’s values. When these become misaligned due to new views about the purpose of the organization or about how to deal with different pressures from the market and institutional contexts, a possibility for change is triggered. This “state’ precipitates change – essentially heightening the likelihood for the organization to transform.
    2. Enabling Dynamics include “power” and “organizational capacity”; while precipitating dynamics generate an internal pressure for change, the direction for change is determined by which groups or individuals within the organization hold power, and whether these internal actors have the skill to manage the transformation process.
Figure 1.1: Applying Safe Sport to an Organizational Change Model

Hover the curser over different areas of the figure in order to reveal details about each part of the model. The details briefly highlight examples of how parts of this model might inform how organization’s implement safe sport related change.

To Begin:

  1. Choose a sport organization your believe needs to change and improve its safe sport practices.
  2. Refer to this organizations as you progress through the steps of the model and consider the questions.

Note: This figure is modified from a version initially published by Royston Greenwood and C.R (Bob) Hinings in 1996.[14]


How to attribute/cite this figure: “Applying Safe Sport to an Organizational Change Model” by Julie Stevens (2025) is licensed under CC-BY-NC 4.0.

Overview

In Part 2, Erin Willson and Georgina Truman share powerful insight about the athlete experience in relation to safe sport. The research they address demonstrates the importance of gathering athlete voices, including voices at the lower levels of the sport system, expanding our individual awareness and building our collective awareness about safe sport in ways that align with the level of the athlete. Eric MacIntosh and Alison Doherty focus on high performance sport, revealing how maltreatment is accepted as part of the competitive environment.

Video 2.1 Julie Stevens: A Summary of the Athletes’ Voices Panel

Video provided by Dr. Michael Van Bussel, Conference Chair, 2021 Safe Sport Forum; and Dr. Julie Stevens, Conference Organizer and Director, Centre for Sport Capacity, Brock University. Used with permission. [Transcript]

Part 3 includes three chapters that draw upon different perspectives to examine how athletes are positioned within a larger sport system. Bruce Kidd examines the historical struggle for safe sport within a system fraught with contested terrain. Peter Donnelly critiques the long-standing autonomy of sport and argues that reengineering the way sport organizations operate will increase safe sport accountability. Finally, Leela MadhavaRau and Talia Ritondo propose encompassing a human rights framework into the broader context of safe sport and discuss how safe sport can be achieved.

Video 1.2 Julie Stevens: A Summary of the Governance and System Re-Engineering Panel

Video provided by Brock University Centre for Sport Capacity. Used with permission. [Transcript]

 

Part 4 provides an exceptionally comprehensive five-chapter account of safe sport legal considerations. Hilary Findlay and Marcus Mazzucco examine key legal issues that arise from the creation of an independent body to oversee the implementation of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport (UCCMS) and ensure the fair, transparent and effective management of reported cases of maltreatment. They break down the role of the new independent body in relation to four phases – jurisdiction, investigation, dispute resolution and enforcement. Understanding the legal aspects of the UCCMS as it becomes a mandatory element of the federal sport system, and possibly provincial/territorial and local levels of sport, is critical for students, researchers, professionals and other stakeholders within the Canadian sport system.

Part 5 offers three case studies including two “from-the-field” exemplars from sport organizations that have effectively developed safe sport policies and practices, and one detailed account of a safe sport issue facing a national sport organization. Kasey Liboiron and Karri Dawson champion the True Sport values-based approach to sport as a fundamental foundation for the intentional integration of effective safe sport policy by stakeholders throughout the sport system. Ellen MacPherson and Ian Moss offer an insider account of the initiatives Gymnastics Canada completed in order to develop, support and foster safe sport throughout the organization. In his chronicle of safe sport in hockey, Taylor McKee argues that Canadian hockey culture protects those in power by fostering an environment of silence and shielding perpetrators, suggesting that challenging masculinity norms is necessary for change.

""
Photo by Rowan Simpson on Unsplash.

Part 6 shifts the focus to coaches where two chapters address the role a coach plays in a safe athlete experience. Michael Van Bussel and Kirsty Spence outline how a care-driven model and relational risk management plan offer a constructive guide for safe sport relationships among athletes, coaches, and administrators. They also address how to move from theory to practice by integrating the model in planning. Isabelle Cayer and Peter Niedre (Coaching Association of Canada) explain the culture shifts that have impacted the safe sport movement and various actions to offer and promote training and coach education across the country.

Part 7 highlights sport officials as the lesser known yet essential stakeholder of the sport ecosystem. Spanning two chapters, Lori Livingston and Susan Forbes address the purpose of rules and their role in creating safe playing environments, and outline the role of officials and how officials have been historically maltreated by spectators, coaches and athletes.

Part 8 focuses upon safe sport and equity-seeking groups. Jeff Thiessen and Maureen Connolly present the challenges confronting the vision of universal safe sport with respect to its translation and implementation for equity-deserving parasport athletes. In response, they propose that pillars of education, authentic representation, and allyship are foundational to attaining meaningful safe sport in parasport.

Part 9 offers commentary of what needs to happen in order for the UCCMS to be realized. Gretchen Kerr explains why the UCCMS represents only a first step in the safe sport journey. She suggests next steps must include the need for independent complaint and adjudication mechanisms, and notions of safe sport that extend beyond the prevention of harms to include optimization of the sport experience. Michele Donnelly offers an important perspective on what steps need to be taken next to put the UCCMS words into action, and how we might extend safe sport beyond a singular focus upon maltreatment.

Part 10 closes with a perspective on how we might to expand our safe sport practices beyond just those with a punitive purpose. Isiah Clelland discusses the notion of safeguarding and through a focus upon youth sport, argues for a proactive approach to build awareness and trust among sport stakeholders in our communities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the wealth of information in this book offers ways we can counter challenges of structure in order to commit to safe sport values and enact these values through policies and programs. One resounding theme the authors have communicated in their own unique way is that safe sport requires effort from a variety of stakeholders (including you) at every level of the sports system. My hope is to build upon this initial edition by adding new chapters that respond to the evolving conversation about safe sport in our communities.

I am excited to share these insightful scholars and professional accounts from across the sport system, and to work with you to build ways of keeping the “Athletes First” focus at the forefront of our ongoing and collective safe sport efforts.

Yours in safe sport,

 

""

 

 Figure Descriptions

Figure 1.1 This figure demonstrates parts of a model that explains a successful organizational change process. The first part indicates “Market Context” and “Institutional Context”, each of which influence the environment of the system or sector in which an organization exists. The second part indicates intra-dynamics (internal) that precipitate change. One of these is “Interest Dissatisfaction” and the other is “Value Commitment”. Each of these combine to generate the third part of the model, called a “Pressure for Change”, which triggers transformation within the organization. The fourth part also indicates intra-dynamics (internal) but these enable change. One of these is “Power” and the other is “Organizational Capability”. Each of these combine to ultimately reach “Change and Stability” where the organization reaches a state of successful transformation. [return to text]

 

  Sources

42 Courses. (October 16). Jeff Bezos’ one empty chair rule. Retrieved January 27, 2022, from https://blog.42courses.com/home/2018/10/16/jeff-bezos-one-empty-chair-rule.

Anders, G. (2012, April 4). Inside Amazon’s idea machine: How Bezos decodes customers. Forbes. Retrieved January 27, 2022, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2012/04/04/inside-amazon/?sh=ec2d00461998

Ciomaga, B., Thibault, L., & Kihl, L. (2017). Athlete involvement in the governance of sport organizations. In M. Dodds, K. Heisey, & A. Ahonen (Eds.), Routhledge Handbook of International Sport Business. London: Routledge.

Danisman, A., Hinings, C. R., & Slack, T. (2006). Integration and differentiation in institutional values: An empirical investigation in the field of Canadian national sport organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 23(4), 301-317.

Dolsten, J., Barker-Ruchti, N., & Lindgren, E. C. (2019). Sustainable elite sport: Swedish athletes’ voices of sustainability in athletics. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(5), 727-742. DOI: 10.1080/2159676X.2020.1778062.

Greenwood, R. & Hinings, C.R. (1996). Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing together the Old and the New Institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022-1054.

Grigaliūnaitė, I. & Eimontas, E. (2018). Athletes’ involvement in decision making for good governance. Baltic Journal of Sport and Health Sciences, 3(110), 18-24. https://etalpykla.lituanistikadb.lt/object/LT-LDB-0001:J.04~2018~1579623660997/J.04~2018~1579623660997.pdf

Jackson, G. & Ritchie, I. (2007). Leave it to the experts: The politics of ‘athlete-centeredness’ in the Canadian sport system. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 2(4), 396-411.

Kihl, L., Kikulis, L., & Thibault, L. (2008). A deliberative democratic approach to athlete-centred sport: The dynamics of administrative and communicative power. European Sport Management Quarterly, 7(1), 1-30.

Kikulis, L. M., Slack, T., & Hinings, B. (1992). Institutionally Specific Design Archetypes: A Framework for Understanding Change in National Sport Organizations. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 27(4), 343-368. https://doi.org/10.1177/101269029202700405

Koetsier, J. (2018, April 5). Why every Amazon meeting has at least 1 empty chair. Inc. Retrieved January 27, 2022, from https://www.inc.com/john-koetsier/why-every-amazon-meeting-has-at-least-one-empty-chair.html

Macintosh, D., & Whitson, D. (1990). Game planners: Transforming Canada’s sport system. McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.

MacIntosh, E., & Weckend-Dill, A. (2015). The athlete’s perspective. In M. Parent & J. L. Chappelet (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Sports Events Management. London: Routledge.

Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179.

Thibault, L. & Babiak, K. (2005). Organizational changes in Canada’s sport system: Toward an athlete-centred approach. European Sport Management Quarterly, 5(2), 105-132.

  1. Anders, G., 2012. ↵
  2. Koetsier, J., 2018. ↵
  3. Thibault, L.& Babiak, K., 2005. ↵
  4. Grigaliūnaitė, I. & Eimontas, E., 2018. ↵
  5. Ciomaga, B., Thibault, L., & Kihl, L., 2017. ↵
  6. Kihl, L., Kikulis, L., & Thibault, L., 2008. ↵
  7. Jackson, G. & Ritchie, I., 2007. ↵
  8. Dolsten, J., Barker-Ruchti, N. & Lindgren, EC., 2019. ↵
  9. MacIntosh, E. & Weckend Dill, A., 2015. ↵
  10. Macintosh & Whitson, 1990 ↵
  11. Kikulis,L., Slack, T., & Hinings, C.R., 1992. ↵
  12. Danisman,A., Hinings, C.R., & Slack, T., 2006. ↵
  13. Greenwood, R. & Hinings, C.R, 1996. ↵
  14. Greenwood, R. & Hinings, C.R, 1996. ↵

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Safe Sport: Critical issues and practices Copyright © 2022 by Julie Stevens is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book