Chapter 12: Defining safe sport

Part II — Safe sport in Canada

On this page

• Academic definition of safe sport
• Government definition of safe sport
• Lack of consensus about safe sport
• Negative connotations of safe sport
• Safe sport for the purpose of this report

The meaning of “safe sport” has evolved. Originally, it focused on preventing physical injuries. This led, for example, to legislation about concussion prevention in Canada.^{Footnote 1} The scope of what constitutes "safe sport" continues to change alongside changes in sport and broader societal influences and social concerns.^{Footnote 2}

Academic definition of safe sport

A safe sport environment is an environment that is “respectful, equitable and violence-free for all individuals involved in sport.”^{Footnote 3} Academics have identified three key components to a safe sport environment:

1. Physical safety: an environment that is free from issues of physical danger.
2. Relational safety: relationships that are free from abuse or neglect.
3. Optimized sport programs: programs that prioritize positive development, rights of inclusion, accessibility, fairness, and safety.^{Footnote 4}

While there may not be one single definition of safe sport, several behaviours that go beyond physical safety have been identified as unacceptable in sport and create unsafe sport environments.

But defining safe sport is complex because what is considered acceptable or unacceptable behaviour can be subjective. For example, what one person sees as a rite of passage as part of team building (such as carrying equipment as a rookie) may be considered hazing by another (such as acting as a personal servant).^{Footnote 5}

Participants in the Commission’s processes, including experts, drew attention to 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 increased injury risk and premature sport specialization, when athletes focus on one sport to the exclusion of others at a very young age. Current and former athletes noted that frequent training and competition, along with high-performance expectations, can heighten the risk of both immediate and long-lasting injuries.

Attention was also drawn to the importance of allowing enough time for psychological, mental and physical recovery. It was emphasized that recovery must be understood as a holistic process, not just physical healing.

Government definition of safe sport

In February 2019, the 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 6} 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.
• 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 7}

As further discussed in Chapter 15, 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 to promote a respectful sport culture. Its purpose is to advance “a respectful sport culture that delivers quality, inclusive, accessible, welcoming and safe sport experiences.”^{Footnote 8}

The Universal Code of Conduct provides that individuals have a right to participate in sport “in an environment that is free from all forms of maltreatment and that treats every individual with dignity and respect.”^{Footnote 9} It also provides standard definitions for various forms of maltreatment, referred to as “prohibited behaviours.” These prohibited behaviours include:

• psychological maltreatment
• physical maltreatment
• neglect
• sexual maltreatment
• grooming
• boundary transgression
• discrimination^{Footnote 10}

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

• 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 11}

It can therefore be inferred that, under the Universal Code of Conduct, a safe sport environment is one that is free from all forms of maltreatment.^{Footnote 12}

Lack of consensus about safe sport

Overall, we learned that there was a lack of consensus on what “safe sport” means.

Participants in our engagement process generally agreed on the overarching characteristics of a safe sport environment. Safe sport environments were frequently described as inclusive, respectful and welcoming spaces. They were described as spaces which contribute to better mental health for all those involved and lay the foundation for athletes to perform to the best of their abilities. Athletes and researchers also frequently associated safety with qualities like trust and respect. These views suggest that safe sport should be built on positive values.

However, the lines became blurred when assessing whether particular behaviours should 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 and 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 safe limits was essential for improving performance or advancing in their sport.

Most participants recognized that high-performance sport is challenging and can be grueling. In some circumstances, athletes may choose to compete when injured or 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 about being pushed in a way that preserves their dignity and autonomy. The difficulty is drawing the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

Many participants also noted that the meaning of safe sport has evolved over time and so have the norms in sport environments. As noted above, what once may have been considered as a normal coaching practice is now considered by many to be a form of maltreatment. For example: weighing athletes in artistic sports, making athletes run laps as punishment for failure or mistakes, using verbal abuse or berating after errors in play or training, isolating or intentionally neglecting athletes as punishment, and forcing athletes to perform or practise while injured.

Despite conflicting perspectives on what constitutes acceptable coaching methods and unacceptable behaviours, participants generally agreed that “safe sport” and all that it encompasses is not clear. The Commission heard many different terms and a call for clearer definitions. When discussing safe sport, many spoke of the importance of “safeguarding” and eliminating “maltreatment.”

Negative connotations of safe sport

In recent years, the term “safe sport” has taken on a negative connotation for many. 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 even as a weapon. As a result, the original purpose of safe sport, which is to create sport environments where all are respected and welcomed, is weakened, and the sense of urgency to prevent maltreatment is lost.

For some, particularly coaches, safe sport now causes anxiety and a sense of dread. Several described a feeling of constantly walking on eggshells, afraid of making mistakes and concerned that the concept has become “weaponized.” Many shared that it is even being used as a verb — 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, particularly due to its cost and the high administrative burden involved in an environment where funding for sport organizations has remained stagnant, as described above. This is especially true for smaller sport organizations with limited resources.

Safe sport for the purpose of this report

For the purpose of the Commission’s mandate, we adopted the definition of Safe sport as articulated in the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport. Accordingly, when we refer to a “safe sport environment,” we mean an environment that is free from maltreatment. We likewise understand maltreatment to encompass all forms of maltreatment defined under the Universal Code of Conduct, including psychological, physical and sexual maltreatment, neglect, grooming, boundary transgressions and discrimination.