Chapter 8: Improving safe sport in Canada: the Commission's proposed approach

On this page

• Defining safe sport
  • Academic definition of safe sport
  • Government definition of safe sport
• Participants’ perspectives on safe sport
  • Lack of consensus about safe sport
  • Safe sport for Indigenous sport participants
  • Safe sport for equity-deserving sport participants
  • Connection between maltreatment and injury
  • Negative connotations of safe sport
• Safe sport in this report
• Why safe sport is important
• The Commission’s proposed approach to improving safe sport: prevention, response, and support

Defining safe sport

Although the term “safe sport” emerged internationally and in Canada in recent years, the principles underlying the concept have existed for decades. As we discussed in Chapter 3, in 1996, Sport Canada adopted the Sport Funding and Accountability Framework that required National Sport Organizations to develop and adopt a policy addressing harassment and abuse and to appoint harassment officers.^{Footnote 795}

In 2007, the International Olympic Committee issued the first consensus statement on sexual harassment and abuse in sport.^{Footnote 796} The consensus summarized scientific knowledge on sexual harassment and abuse in sport and provided a set of recommendations aimed at raising awareness, strengthening policy development, enhancing education, and promoting good practice.

It was followed in 2016 by the updated consensus statement on “Harassment and Abuse (Non-accidental Violence) in Sport,”^{Footnote 797} which enhanced the 2007 statement by identifying additional types of harassment and abuse in sport, namely psychological, physical, and neglect.^{Footnote 798} Despite a heightened focus on creating safer sporting environments since the release of the first consensus statement, experts consider that progress in advancing safe sport has been slow.^{Footnote 799} In their view, this is partially due to the “absence of a generally accepted definition of Safe Sport or a framework for understanding and advancing Safe Sport.”^{Footnote 800}

Different international interpretations of safe sport highlight the range of existing definitions:

• The 2016 International Olympic Committee consensus statement on harassment and abuse defines safe sport as “an athletic environment that is respectful, equitable and free from all forms of non-accidental violence to athletes.”^{Footnote 801}
• Safe Sport International, a global advocacy organization, is dedicated to advancing safe, inclusive sporting environments free from all forms of abuse, harassment, and violence against athletes of all ages.^{Footnote 802}
• The US Center for SafeSport refers to safe sport as “building a sport community where participants can work and learn together free of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse and misconduct.”^{Footnote 803}

Within the Canadian context the definition of safe sport also varies:

• The Coaching Association of Canada defines safe sport as a collective responsibility “to create, foster and preserve sport environments that ensure positive, healthy and fulfilling experiences for all individuals” and to “recognize and report acts of maltreatment and prioritize the welfare, safety and rights of every person at all times.”^{Footnote 804}
• Sport for Life defines safe sport as providing “a training and competitive environment for athletes, coaches, officials, and volunteers that is free of abuse, harassment, and discrimination.” It adds that “safety includes the physical aspect of the equipment and training practices.”^{Footnote 805}
• The Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, which we review in greater detail in Chapter 9, stipulates that individuals should have the reasonable expectation to participate in sport in Canada “in an environment that is free from all forms of maltreatment and that treats every individual with dignity and respect.”^{Footnote 806}

These definitions reveal differences in both the populations they target (from athletes to all sport participants) and their focus (from safeguarding against harm to protecting individual well-being and human rights).

Another word that is gaining in popularity is “safeguarding.” The word has roots in child protection legislation and is used in sporting contexts in several countries, including the United Kingdom and Ireland.^{Footnote 807} Safeguarding is generally defined as an “action that is taken to promote the welfare of an athlete and protect them from harm.”^{Footnote 808} According to experts, safeguarding, like safe sport, aims to create safe sport environments but it can also be used to encourage the sport community to “use sport as a vehicle to advance human rights.”^{Footnote 809}

Academic definition of safe sport

In 2022, Canadian researchers constructed a conceptual framework for safe sport informed by diverse stakeholders’ perspectives (including athletes, coaches, administrators, officials, and support staff) in the Canadian sport system.^{Footnote 810} This study was undertaken in response to reports of maltreatment and toxic cultures in Canadian sport. It followed the implementation of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport among federally funded sport organizations and the creation of the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (which we discuss in Chapter 10).^{Footnote 811}

The results of this study suggested that stakeholders’ understanding of safe sport includes three components:

• Environment and physical safety: “a safe environment that is free from issues of physical danger from equipment and doping”^{Footnote 812}
• Relational safety: “relationships that are free from sexual abuse, physical abuse, and emotional or psychosocial abuse”^{Footnote 813}
• Optimizing sport: “programs that prioritize positive development, rights of inclusion, accessibility, fairness, and safety.”^{Footnote 814}

However, the researchers noted that how sport stakeholders understand safe sport is continuously evolving amid changes in sport, broader societal influences and social concerns.^{Footnote 815}

Government definition of safe sport

In February 2019, ministers responsible for sport, physical activity, and recreation from the federal, provincial, and territorial governments adopted the Red Deer Declaration — For the Prevention of Harassment, Abuse and Discrimination in Sport.^{Footnote 816} Under the Red Deer Declaration, all governments recognized that:

• “All Canadians have the right to participate in sport in an environment that is safe, welcoming, inclusive, ethical and respectful, and one that protects the dignity, rights and health of all participants.”^{Footnote 817}
• “Sport must be free from harassment, abuse, unethical behaviour, and discrimination, regardless of sex, gender identity or expression, ethnicity, religion, language, age, sexual orientation, ability, or any other basis.”^{Footnote 818}

As we discuss in Chapter 9, the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport was developed as a direct response to the Red Deer Declaration. It is the core document that sets harmonized rules to be adopted by sport organizations funded by the Government of Canada. Its purpose is to advance “a respectful sport culture that delivers quality, inclusive, accessible, welcoming and safe sport experiences.”^{Footnote 819}

The Universal Code of Conduct defines maltreatment as “a volitional [i.e. voluntary] act and/or omission described in Sections 5.2 to 5.6 that results in harm or has the potential for physical or psychological harm.”^{Footnote 821} Section 5 of the Code outlines conduct that constitutes “prohibited behaviours.”^{Footnote 822} Sections 5.2 to 5.6 of the Code respectively prohibits the following forms of maltreatment:

• psychological maltreatment
• physical maltreatment
• neglect
• sexual maltreatment
• grooming.^{Footnote 823}

The Universal Code of Conduct also identifies a range of behaviours that, while not maltreatment themselves, are also prohibited. These include:

• boundary transgression
• discrimination
• subjecting a participant to the risk of maltreatment
• aiding and abetting maltreatment or other prohibited behaviour
• failing to report possible maltreatment or other prohibited behaviour
• intentionally reporting a false allegation
• interfering with or manipulating an investigation or disciplinary process
• retaliating.^{Footnote 824}

Participants’ perspectives on safe sport

Participants we spoke with during our engagement process highlighted the absence of a commonly agreed-upon definition of safe sport. We learned that the meaning of safe sport differs for Indigenous people and equity-deserving groups because their experiences, histories, and cultural contexts affect how they understand safety and well-being. Other participants noted a connection between injury and maltreatment. Some also observed that the concept of safe sport has recently taken on negative connotations.

Lack of consensus about safe sport

Participants generally agreed on the overarching characteristics of a safe sport environment. They frequently described such environments as inclusive, respectful, and welcoming spaces that contribute to better mental health for all those involved — as environments that support athletes performing to the best of their abilities. Athletes and researchers also frequently associated safety with qualities like trust and respect and indicated that the concept of safe sport should reflect positive values.

However, the lines became blurred when assessing whether particular behaviours in specific contexts can be characterized as appropriate or inappropriate. Many stressed the importance of having an agreed-upon or a revised definition of safe sport. Some participants also cautioned us that safe sport was nuanced and subjective. They said that actions intended to push athletes to perform in the context of high-performance sport may not always constitute maltreatment. For instance, some parents believed that coaches yelling and pushing athletes beyond certain limits was essential for improving performance and advancing children in their sport.

Most participants recognized that high-performance sport is challenging and can be gruelling. We were told, for example, that athletes sometimes choose to compete when injured or to complete extremely demanding training programs to achieve excellence. This, for some athletes, does not necessarily reflect maltreatment. Athletes can be challenged and still be safe. For many high-performance athletes, it is appropriate to be challenged in a way that preserves their dignity and autonomy. It can be difficult to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, particularly when considering personal experiences, cultural expectations, and the pursuit of excellence.^{Footnote 825}

Many participants also noted that as the meaning of safe sport has evolved, so have the norms in sport environments. What once may have been considered as a normal coaching practice is now considered to be a form of maltreatment. Practices such as weighing athletes in artistic sports, imposing onerous and inappropriate physical challenges as punishment for errors, using verbal abuse or berating them after errors, isolating or neglecting athletes as a form of discipline, and forcing them to train or compete while injured are no longer considered acceptable coaching methods.

Despite conflicting perspectives on what constitutes acceptable coaching methods and unacceptable behaviours, participants generally agreed that safe sport and all that it encompasses remains unclear. The Commission heard many different terms, including “safeguarding” and “eliminating maltreatment” and a call for clearer definitions.

Safe sport for Indigenous sport participants

Indigenous participants in our engagement process informed us that, for Indigenous people, safe sport goes beyond preventing physical and psychological harm. For Indigenous people, safety is holistic and grounded in physical, cultural, social, psychological, and spiritual well-being. We were informed that sport is not simply a place to gather and play or to compete in environments free from abuse and harm; it is a living practice of identity, belonging, and healing. We came to understand that for Indigenous Peoples, safe sport is inseparable from cultural safety. Some have told us that safe sport meant building a properly resourced and sustainable ecosystem where Indigenous participants — athletes, coaches, officials, volunteers, and administrators — can thrive in environments that are culturally grounded, free from racism, and accountable to the communities they serve.

Safe sport for Indigenous Peoples includes several components:

• Indigenous self-determination: Indigenous Peoples must have the authority to lead, govern, and manage sport according to their own values.
• Culture as protection: Ceremony, language, and land-based practice are forms of safety.
• Trauma-informed practices: Practices must recognize colonialism’s intergenerational impacts and favour healing over punitive responses.
• Restorative justice: Resolution processes must prioritize culturally grounded healing and ensure that accountability is fostered through relationships and learning.
• Representation: Indigenous leadership at all levels of sport is critical to restoring confidence and accountability in the sport system.
• Community capacity: Indigenous communities must have the resources to deliver safe sport in ways that reflect their own priorities.

Safe sport for equity-deserving sport participants

Several participants reflected critically on current definitions of safe sport, particularly as it relates to equity-deserving groups. More specifically, they questioned whether safety can truly be realized for those groups. For example, participants suggested that a Black athlete may experience harms beyond those that a white athlete experiences. So certain concepts of safe sport do not adequately reflect the safety and well-being of all sport participants.

We were told that safe sport must go beyond protecting athletes’ physical and psychological well-being. It must also uphold inclusion, ensure fairness, and promote acceptance to create an environment where every participant feels valued, respected, and supported.

Connection between maltreatment and injury

Participants in the Commission’s processes, including experts, noted the connection between physical injury and maltreatment. For instance, allowing or pressuring an athlete to play while experiencing concussion symptoms is considered a form of maltreatment. Similarly, allowing an athlete to train or compete when they are physically injured can also be maltreatment.

Connections were also made between premature sport specialization and maltreatment. Participants observed that when athletes focus on one sport to the exclusion of others at a very young age, flawed personal and athletic development can follow, along with an increased risk of injury. Both current and former athletes noted that while frequent training, competition, and high-performance expectations are important in sport, they can also heighten the risk of both immediate and long-lasting injuries. They must be balanced appropriately and thoughtfully considered.

Participants also emphasized the importance of allowing enough time for psychological, mental, and physical recovery from sport’s demands. They insisted that recovery must be a holistic process, not just physical healing.

Negative connotations of safe sport

Participants told us that in recent years, the term safe sport has taken on a negative connotation. We heard that there is a growing sense of fatigue associated with the concept. It is increasingly perceived as a source of stress and fear, and sometimes even as a weapon. As a result, the original purpose of the concept — to create sport environments where everyone feels safe, respected, and welcomed — has been weakened and the sense of urgency to prevent maltreatment is lost.

For some, particularly coaches, the term safe sport now causes anxiety and a sense of dread. Several described a feeling of constantly walking on eggshells and being afraid of making mistakes. They were concerned that the concept has become “weaponized.” Many told us that the phrase is even being used as a verb — as in “we are going to safe sport you” — in a threatening or punitive way. In many respects, safe sport has become a contentious and emotionally charged expression.

We also recognize that there is a growing resentment among sport organizations regarding safe sport. This is partly a result of the high administrative burden involved in an environment where funding for sport organizations has remained stagnant, as Chapter 15 describes. This is especially true for smaller sport organizations with limited resources.

Safe sport in this report

For the Commission’s mandate, we adopted the definition of safe sport that is articulated in the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport. A safe sport environment is one that is “free from all forms of maltreatment and that treats every individual with dignity and respect.”^{Footnote 826}

The Universal Code of Conduct defines maltreatment as psychological, physical, and sexual maltreatment, as well as neglect and grooming.^{Footnote 827} However, in this Report, the term “maltreatment” is used more broadly to encompass not only these forms of maltreatment, but also all other behaviours which may not constitute maltreatment but are nonetheless prohibited under the Universal Code of Conduct. These include boundary transgressions, discrimination, subjecting a participant to the risk of maltreatment, aiding and abetting, failing to report maltreatment or other prohibited behaviours, intentionally reporting a false allegation, interfering with or manipulating an investigation or disciplinary review process and retaliating against a person for making a good faith report of possible prohibited behaviour or for participating in a report process.^{Footnote 828}

Why safe sport is important

Abuse and maltreatment have devastating impacts on victims and survivors. Countless athletes shared with us that, because of maltreatment, they felt forced to leave a sport they still loved and to which they had dedicated their whole life.

Victims and survivors shared that they continued to deal with the life-altering consequences of abuse years after it had occurred.

They described lasting feelings of shame, embarrassment, and guilt along with thoughts of suicide and self-harm that continued long after the periods of abuse and maltreatment.

Victims and survivors framed abuse as a virus and highlighted how it can “infect” not only themselves but also other athletes, their families, and an entire community. The Commission heard from many parents whose children were victims and survivors of abuse. They repeatedly shared that both the abuse and the reporting process had impacted the entire family, describing it all as “devastating.” Many participants in our engagement process expressed deep disappointment and even “disgust” with the sport system.

Parents become less willing to enroll their children in organized sport, and young athletes may withdraw entirely, leading to a measurable decline in participation across age groups and disciplines.

Moreover, we learned that maltreatment disproportionately affects marginalized groups, thereby making issues of equity and access worse.

As trust in the system decreases, so does the pipeline of future athletes, coaches, and volunteers. This not only weakens the likelihood of competitive success but also the social and community-building power of sport itself.

A safe sport environment is one in which individuals can engage fully, learn new skills, develop friendships, grow in confidence, and experience the joy of movement without fear of harm or discrimination. As we discuss in Chapter 2, the social value of sport is immense: it builds character, strengthens communities, improves physical and mental health, and fosters national pride.

However, these benefits can be fully realized only when safety and human rights are a fundamental requirement, not an option. If we are to protect and preserve the positive power of sport in Canadian society, we must commit to creating systems that prioritize safety, dignity, equity, and accountability for all.

The Commission’s proposed approach to improving safe sport: prevention, response, and support

As we outlined earlier in this report, the Commission’s mandate was two-fold. We were instructed to review the sport system and make recommendations on concrete and effective actions to:

• Improve safe sport in Canada, including trauma-informed approaches to support sport participants in the disclosure of and healing from maltreatment.
• Improve the sport system in Canada, including actions relating to policy, funding structures, governance, reporting, accountability, conflicts of interest, systems alignment, culture, and legal considerations.^{Footnote 829}

Later in this report, we review the sport system and make Calls to Action that, if implemented, will improve the Canadian sport system so that all Canadians have trust in it.

In Chapters 9 to 11, we focus on safe sport. The Commission recognizes that completely eliminating maltreatment in sport is not possible. Sport is a microcosm of society and reflects its values, power dynamics, and flaws. Just as abuse, harassment, and discrimination exist in society at large, these issues manifest themselves in sport as well. However, it is crucial to put effective preventive measures in place to reduce how often maltreatment occurs and to have mechanisms to respond appropriately when it does occur. Sport can set an example for society and model what positive change looks like.

Given the interconnected nature of Canada’s sport system, and how powers are divided across federal and provincial jurisdictions (discussed in Chapter 4), improving safe sport in Canada requires meaningful collaboration between both levels of government and within the structures of sport organizations themselves. While the Government of Canada must take the lead in driving change, active collaboration from its provincial and territorial counterparts is essential.

The Commission’s proposed approach to improving safe sport in Canada is structured around three key priorities: prevention, response, and support:

• Prevention focuses on proactive measures to create safer sport environments and reduce the risk of maltreatment.
• Response addresses the need for harmonized and effective mechanisms to respond to maltreatment and hold individuals accountable.
• Support emphasizes the appropriate support for those affected, namely in the complaint management and investigation processes.^{Footnote 830}

The Commission believes that together, these pillars form the foundation for a comprehensive and sustainable safe sport strategy. They constitute the basis for our Calls to Action to the Government of Canada. While all three priorities are equally important, we believe that harmonized and effective mechanisms for responding to maltreatment in sport can strengthen and reinforce prevention efforts. Strong response mechanisms serve as a powerful preventive tool by establishing clear expectations and consequences.

Complaint mechanisms also gather critical data and insights into risks and systemic gaps within the sport system. This information is essential for grounding prevention initiatives in evidence, enabling targeted interventions, policy improvements, and education efforts that address root causes and reduce the likelihood of future harm.

In Chapters 9 and 10, we examine the safe sport policies and complaint mechanisms implemented across the sport system, focusing on the response and support priorities. Chapter 11 then addresses the prevention priority.