Chapter 7: Governance in sport organizations

Part I — The Canadian sport system

On this page

• Urgent need for governance reform
• What is governance?
• Current governance framework at the national level
• Current governance framework at the provincial and territorial level
• Governance frameworks in other countries
• Governance in sport organizations: preliminary findings and recommendations
• Conclusion on governance

Urgent need for governance reform

Many of the issues that led to the Commission’s creation reflect a fundamental failure of governance in the sport system. We also noted that many individuals we engaged with highlighted these same governance shortcomings.

While past efforts have been made to address governance deficiencies, mainly at the level of National Sport Organizations, it is clear that governance is an issue at all levels of the sporting world. This includes National Sport Organizations, national Multisport Service Organizations, Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, and community sport groups, clubs and leagues.

Many National and Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations are complex entities, with some managing significant budgets. To operate their organizations, National Sport Organizations rely heavily on volunteers in various roles, including as board members. These volunteers often join with backgrounds as former athletes, parents of athletes, or sport officials without any governance experience or expertise.

In particular, there is typically insufficient awareness of the complexities surrounding the needs of children and youth in vulnerable situations. Similarly, there is often a limited understanding of the need to address allegations of maltreatment and abuse within their organizations.

While it is recognized that volunteers play a critical and valuable role in the sport system and make an incalculable “in-kind” financial contribution to the sector, they are not always well versed in the principles of good governance. They typically lack the expertise, skills and training to be effective decision-makers, especially when overseeing increasingly complex issues and challenges within sport organizations.

In the current system, governments as funders may establish governance guidelines as stand-alone tools or as conditions of funding. Therefore, sport organizations may have to follow governance rules and requirements attached to their funding agreements. They must also adhere to the requirements of either federal, provincial or territorial not-for-profit corporation legislation. However, these not-for-profit legislations only provide basic statutory requirements with respect to governance, such as key duties for directors, and the duties and rights of members.

A further challenge to appropriate governance and oversight in the sport system is the emergence and growth of private clubs, leagues and organizations. These entities fall outside the traditional sport system and are beyond the reach of National and Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations.

Therefore, it is not surprising that there has been a significant lack of consistency surrounding approaches to governance in the sporting world. In addition, there has been little to no effective monitoring of compliance with existing governance rules. These factors have led to a sport system in which poor governance practices and inadequate governance structures led to the mishandling of abuse, maltreatment and safe sport complaints.

In this section we will outline:

• the current governance framework and generally accepted practices in the Canadian sport system
• good governance practices emanating from studies and reports on good governance within the sport system
• the issues identified within the current sport governance framework
• possible solutions to address these governance gaps

What is governance?

As stated in the 2022 Final Report: Hockey Canada Governance Review by the Honourable Thomas Cromwell, the term “governance” has many definitions and “generally describes the best practices and procedures used by the leaders of an organization to allocate authority and oversight responsibility for decision-making and operational activities.^{Footnote 1}” Governance is influenced by various factors, including the organization's mission and purpose, applicable legislative and regulatory requirements, and policies and standards.

Good governance practices are common in most Canadian settings. These practices are reinforced through highly regarded institutions like the Institute of Corporate Directors and the Governance Centre of Excellence, an initiative of the Ontario Hospital Association, responsible for the Guide to Good Governance. However, these recognized practices are not consistently reflected within the sport sector which appears to have fallen behind and is operating under obsolete standards.

Current governance framework at the national level

Legislation

While the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act is the governing legislation for all federally funded National Sport Organizations, it only provides a broad foundation for sport organizations’ governance. It is also important to note that the Physical Activity and Sport Act offers no direction whatsoever on governance for sport organizations. As a result, since the governance requirements provided in legislation are rudimentary, it is necessary to look beyond these laws to find guidance on governance.

Generally accepted best practices

Generally accepted best practices for not-for-profit organizations are outlined in the Guide to Good Governance.^{Footnote 2} This Guide was referenced by the Honourable Thomas Cromwell in his 2022 Final Report: Hockey Canada Governance Review, and by other governance experts. It provides specific and practical guidelines that help not-for-profit organizations implement governance practices best suited to their needs. At the core of these accepted best practices and guidelines lies the fundamental principles of transparency, accountability, integrity and impartiality, fairness and responsibility.

Another source of governance best practices can be found in federal policies and frameworks.

Policies and frameworks

The Canadian Sport Governance Code and Sport Canada’s Sport Integrity Framework

In February 2020, following the work of the 2019 Canadian High Performance Strategy action plan, a working group led by the Canadian Olympic Committee was formed. Their task was to review governance codes of other nations, research governance best practices in sport and discuss the approach to drafting a code and best practices to be included in a Canadian Sport Governance Code.

Broad engagement efforts were made to elaborate and develop the Code.^{Footnote 3} A series of meetings with National Sport Organizations were held to seek their feedback and input.^{Footnote 4} Following this engagement phase, the Canadian Sport Governance Code was released online in April 2021.^{Footnote 5}

To support the implementation of the Canadian Sport Governance Code, the Canadian Olympic Committee also prepared the Good Governance Framework.^{Footnote 6} This framework links the principles of the Code to the Sport Canada Governance Report Card. The Sport Canada Governance Report Card has since been discontinued but will be discussed in the section below.

The Canadian Sport Governance Code aims to enhance governance practices within National Sport Organizations and improve accountability, transparency, and ethical conduct in Canadian sport. The Code was structured to apply to all National Sports Organizations representing sports on the Olympic Program. A statement in the Code encourages all other National Sport Organizations to adopt the governance requirements it sets out.^{Footnote 7}

The Canadian Sport Governance Code allows National Sport Organizations with fewer than four full-time employees to adopt alternative standards in some areas, although full compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code is encouraged.^{Footnote 8}

All National Sport Organizations covered by the Canadian Sport Governance Code are governed by the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act.^{Footnote 9} It is the Commission’s understanding that applying the Code to Olympic Program National Sport Organizations was intended as a first step to harmonize governance practices, starting with this targeted group of National Sport Organizations.

In May 2023, an initial announcement was made by the former Minister of Sport and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.^{Footnote 10} This announcement stated that all federally funded National Sport Organizations would be required to adopt the Canadian Sport Governance Code and make the corresponding changes to their governance structures by April 2025 to receive federal funding.

Many National Sport Organizations began making necessary changes to comply with the Code by April 1, 2025. However, as discussed above, in November 2024, following a change in minister, the Sport Integrity Framework, a revised set of guidelines, was released. This Framework indicated that the “good governance principles” would be integrated into existing accountability mechanisms for federally funded organizations. This meant that the Canadian Sport Governance Code would not be made mandatory for all federally funded National Sports Organizations.^{Footnote 11}

This shift caused frustration among some National Sport Organizations. Several had invested resources and used their influence to convince their member Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations to amend their bylaws to comply with the Code. These National Sport Organizations were left to explain to their members why all this work had been undertaken.

The Government maintains that the Governance Code, while not mandatory, remains a source of established best practices in sport organization governance. As of April 2025, federally funded National Sport Organizations must only meet five fundamental governance requirements.^{Footnote 12} These are part of the evaluation criteria for eligibility for the Sport Support Program (details on Sport Canada funding programs, processes, eligibility criteria and evaluation criteria are discussed in Chapter 5).^{Footnote 13} Federally funded national Multisport Service Organizations and Canadian Sport Centres have an additional year, until April 2026, to meet the same requirements.^{Footnote 14}

The 5 fundamental governance requirements are:

1. A Business Plan/Strategy that provides mission/mandate, vision, values, objectives, roles and responsibilities of Board and management, performance indicators, etc.
2. A Board of Directors that includes:
   • Diversity: processes in place to support representation among board members of a broad spectrum of identities and experiences within the community that it serves or seeks to engage.
   • Athletes’ voice: a transparent and inclusive process for selecting an Athlete Representative on its Board of Directors.
   • Board orientation and training: processes in place to provide orientation and training for new and/or re-elected members on the fundamentals of good governance and board responsibilities.
   • Oversight committees: establishment and maintenance, complete with Board approved terms of reference, of oversight committees.
3. Internal Controls established for financial controls and ongoing risk management.
4. Organizational Transparency measures in place to share governance-related documents on its website, so that they are readily available and accessible to the public.
5. Discipline and appeal policies and procedures are in place that include access to independent dispute resolution through the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada.^{Footnote 15}

It is worth noting that all but one governance requirement for the Sport Support Program’s eligibility criteria are reflected in the Canadian Sport Governance Code. The single requirement missing from the Code is the need to establish a discipline and appeal policies and procedures that includes access to independent dispute resolution through the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada.

The Sport Canada Governance Report Card and the Program Risk Assessment Tool (PRAM)

In 2019, Sport Canada developed the Sport Canada Governance Report Card as an oversight mechanism under the Sport Funding and Accountability Framework. The purpose of the report cards was to assess how federally funded sport organizations were aligning with government priorities.

The first phase of the Report Card, issued in 2019, evaluated progress on measures to promote sport integrity, diversity and inclusion, and communication and engagement.^{Footnote 16} The second phase, issued in 2021, focused on good governance principles.^{Footnote 17} Organizations were required to submit evidence of compliance, receiving numeric scores and feedback on areas for improvement.^{Footnote 18}

The Report Card was intended to provide guidance on best practices and influenced how resources were allocated, as “organizations [were] encouraged to use the results of the Report Card to prepare upcoming funding applications to Sport Canada.”^{Footnote 19} However, the Report Card was suspended after concerns emerged that it had given high ratings to organizations that were later found to have significant governance and integrity issues.^{Footnote 20}

Sport Canada now uses a standardized risk assessment tool called the Program Risk Assessment and Mitigation Tool (more commonly called the “PRAM”). This tool is used to assess the risk of applicants before deciding whether to provide funding. Through this risk assessment, Sport Canada considers a number of factors, including whether the applicant has successfully completed other funded projects, if they kept the Department informed of their progress, whether the applicant operates effectively on a daily basis, and if they have good governance procedures.

The Program Risk Assessment and Mitigation Tool examines issues under two categories: external environment (which includes governance) and risk relating to the activity. The result of the risk assessment evaluation of a funding application will determine the conditions to be included in the contribution agreement intended to mitigate the identified risks.

For example, if an application is assessed as higher risk, their contribution agreement might involve distributing funding through several payments. It could also include additional reporting requirements and outline specific monitoring activities that must be undertaken.

While this risk assessment tool is standardized and utilized at the Department of Canadian Heritage, it is our understanding that it is not tailored specifically for the assessment of National Sport Organizations.

Reports and studies on governance in the sport system

In 2022, a number of important reports and studies were released, focusing on governance issues identified within three major federally funded National Sport Organizations: Canada Soccer, Hockey Canada and Gymnastics Canada. The 2022 reports by McLaren Global Sport Solutions Inc. on Canada Soccer,^{Footnote 21} Justice Thomas Cromwell’s Governance Review of Hockey Canada,^{Footnote 22} and McLaren Global Sport Solutions Inc. report to Gymnastics Canada,^{Footnote 23} all offer thoughtful and detailed recommendations about sport governance.

Some recommendations from these studies were echoed in reports of the two House of Commons Standing Committees which undertook studies related to safe sport. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage tabled a report entitled "Safe Sport in Canada"^{Footnote 24} in 2024, and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women tabled a report entitled "Women and Girls in Sport"^{Footnote 25} in 2023.

Several of these recommendations reiterated the importance of good governance principles. They encourage compliance with these principles by urging the adoption of clear statements and the development and adoption of processes and procedures for several governance-related responsibilities.

For example, the Cromwell Report^{Footnote 26} recommended that the board of directors adopt statements to, for example, clarify roles and responsibilities, define the nature of discretionary voting rights, and adopt a governance model. These documents also recommend that boards adopt or establish various processes and procedures with respect to a number of things such as staggering board members’ terms, annual board review processes, board Chair recruitment processes, and Board meeting processes and procedures. It should be noted that the same practice is included in the Guide to Good Governance.^{Footnote 27}

A strong recommendation also emerged for meaningful representation of athletes within sport organizations’ governance structure and decision-making processes.

Finally, these reports and studies highlighted the need for openness and transparency when it comes to the use of public funds. This led to the Government of Canada to require comprehensive financial disclosure from National Sport Organizations.

Current governance framework at the provincial and territorial level

Legislation

The governing legislation for Provincial and Territorial sport organizations is either the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act or the provincial or territorial equivalent. Some provincial and territorial governments specify under which legislation the entity must be incorporated to be eligible to receive funding, while others are silent or leave it to the discretion of the sport organization.

Similar to federal not-for-profit incorporation legislation, provincial and territorial legislative frameworks typically provide a broad governance foundation framework for sport organizations. However, some provinces and territories go beyond this. For instance, the Yukon has legislatively imposed governance requirements on its Territorial Sport Organizations as a condition for funding through the Recreation Regulations^{Footnote 28} made under the Recreation Act.^{Footnote 29}

Other provinces and territories impose governance requirements on their Provincial or Territorial Sport Organizations that go beyond the requirements of the applicable not-for-profit legislation through policy, rather than legislative intervention, where compliance is required for funding eligibility.

Therefore, when examining governance issues, it is important to look at generally accepted best practices such as those outlined in the Guide to Good Governance.^{Footnote 30}

Quebec Governance Code

Quebec is the only province or territory that has developed a governance code specifically tailored for not-for-profit sport and leisure organizations. This is the Code de gouvernance des organismes à but non lucratif (OBNL) québécois de sport et de loisir, published in May 2024.^{Footnote 31}

The Code provides guidelines in terms of sport policy and best governance practices for sport organizations. Compliance with the Quebec Code is a requirement for receiving funding from the recreation and sport division of the ministère de l’Éducation (Ministry of Education).

The Quebec Code provides that the board of directors must adopt a statement that describes its role and responsibilities. These include, among others, strategic planning, evaluation of organizational performance, supervision of the affairs of the organization, management of finances, governance, and hiring and evaluating of the Chief Executive Officer. It must also specify the responsibilities and what is expected of the directors.^{Footnote 32}

The federal and Quebec government governance requirements are effective only because they are tied to funding. Beyond these funding conditions, the governments have no direct control over sport organization governance.

A review of what currently exists in terms of sport governance frameworks reveals that what is in place at the federal level is not necessarily replicated at the provincial and territorial level or beyond.

Governance frameworks in other countries

Several countries adopted governance codes and frameworks related to sport and/or physical activity. For this Preliminary Report, we refer to sport governance frameworks in New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

These four countries have taken varying approaches to sport governance. They demonstrate the importance of an intentional and standardized approach to sport governance structures and framework within a country. Such an approach fosters a strong sport culture and mitigates a governance system’s vulnerabilities.

New Zealand

Sport New Zealand established a governance framework designed specifically for sport and recreation organizations.^{Footnote 33} While not mandatory, sport organizations are encouraged to align with the framework’s principles. They are incentivized to do so through an accreditation program call the “Governance Quality Mark.” Through this program, a sport organization that meets specific governance standards will be accredited and able to use and display a governance standard symbol.^{Footnote 34}

In addition to this framework, Sport New Zealand developed the Nine Steps to Effective Governance,^{Footnote 35} a component part of their capability building program. This resource provides an overview of some of the key elements that individuals involved in the governance of play, active recreation and sport organizations should consider when addressing governance.^{Footnote 36}

United Kingdom

UK Sport and Sport England launched the Code for Sport Governance. This Code sets out mandatory governance requirements for sport organizations who seek Government and National Lottery Funding from UK Sport and/or Sport England.^{Footnote 37}

The Code for Sport Governance sets out the required levels of transparency, diversity and inclusion, accountability and integrity. Although mandatory, the Code achieves flexibility by using a tiered approach to the adoption of its requirements.^{Footnote 38} As UK Sport and Sport England invest in different types of organizations and the size of the investments differ, they apply the Code proportionally using three Tiers.

Each Tier has a different level of mandatory governance requirements.^{Footnote 39} UK Sport and Sport England, at exercising their sole discretion, place an organization into the Tier they consider most appropriate. This decision considers the circumstances of the investment and the organization, and is in accordance with an established broad definition of the Tiers.^{Footnote 40}

In 2021, UK Sport published its Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy. This strategy identifies four priorities:

• create more diverse athlete and workforce talent pathways
• increase diversity of representation on national governing bodies and boards
• promote and embed inclusion
• drive equality, diversity and inclusion within UK Sport^{Footnote 41}

Principle 2 in the Code for Sport Governance provides that sport organizations should recruit and engage with people from diverse backgrounds.^{Footnote 42} The specific requirement varies depending on the sport organization’s Tier categorization. For example, Tier 1 organizations may confirm compliance with this requirement by submitting any of the following to UK Sport, among other possibilities:

• a board skills matrix outlining the skills, experience and diversity
• a recruitment policy that references consideration of skills and diversity of individuals
• minutes of discussion where the organization considered how to improve diversity and inclusion

For Tier 1 organizations, it is also stated that an assessor from UK Sport or Sport England may reach out to the organization to confirm their compliance and determine if they are genuinely committed to diversity and inclusion.^{Footnote 43}

For Tier 3 organizations, the requirements are more stringent. They must publish their objective to ensure their leadership represents and reflects the diversity of the community they serve.^{Footnote 44} On a yearly basis, they must create a Diversity and Inclusion Action plan and submit it for approval to UK Sport or Sport England.^{Footnote 45} The plan must outline the organization’s proposed actions to achieve leadership diversity and must be posted on their website. In addition, the organizations must publish an annual update on their Action Plan.^{Footnote 46}

It is the Commission’s understanding that UK Sport works closely with sport organizations to help them comply with these requirements. When a sport organization fails to meet the UK Sport requirement, funds are withheld, and conditions are put in place until they achieve compliance.

It is worth noting that within its own structure, UK Sport’s Diversity and Inclusion Plan provides that:

(b)y 2031 the people in UK Sport will be reflective of UK society. Specifically, this means that our Board, Senior Leadership Team and Workforce will separately and collectively be comprised of min: 50% female, 20% disabled, 18% diverse ethnic background, and 3% 2SLGBTQI+, as well as people with different lived, regional and socio-economic experiences.^{Footnote 47}

These targeted national demographic benchmarks are based on the 2021 census.

Australia

In Australia, the Sport Governance Principles were co-designed through a sector-wide engagement process.^{Footnote 48} Although these governance principles tend to be most applicable at the national, state and territory levels, they can be used throughout the Australian sport sector.^{Footnote 49}

According to the Australian Sports Commission, the Sport Governance Principles are intended to support a high standard of performance by those who govern a sport.^{Footnote 50} To help sport organizations with the implementation of these governance principles, the Australian Sports Commission established a dedicated team. This Sport Governance and Organizational Enhancement team provides advisory support to the boards of national sport organizations,^{Footnote 51} assisting them in developing sport governance practices in line with the Sport Governance Principles and Standards. ^{Footnote 52}

The Sport Governance Standards were also established following a sector-wide engagement process. These standards are measures by which sport organizations can evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of their respective governance systems and processes.^{Footnote 53} There are 35 Standards with a 4-point scale for each (1 representing low maturity and 4 representing the highest level of maturity).^{Footnote 54} Each Standard aligns to a Sport Governance Principle.^{Footnote 55}

National and State sport organizations are invited to self-evaluate their governance against each Standard using the scoring scale described above.^{Footnote 56} Following this process, the Australian Sports Commission releases a Sport Governance Standards Benchmarking Report. This report provides insight into the current governance maturity of sport organizations and identifies needs.^{Footnote 57} As a result, the Australian Sport Commission can redirect its priorities in terms of support, education and resources for the sector.^{Footnote 58}

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the expected governance maturity of a sport organization in Australia is based on the financial investment it receives from its funder (either the Australian Sports Commission or the State and Territory Agencies for Sport and Recreation) as well as their generated revenue.^{Footnote 59} In essence, the expectations placed on sport organizations depend on their overall internal capacity.^{Footnote 60} The Australian Sports Commission makes it clear that expectations refer to the anticipated maturity level rather than a strict compliance level.^{Footnote 61}

Principle 4 of the Sport Governance Standards provides that a board should be composed of diverse individuals with different perspectives and experiences to ensure for improved decision-making.^{Footnote 62} The standards for this principle state that the board selection matrix should provide for a mix of skills, expertise and experiences.^{Footnote 63} Goals should also be set with respect to board composition that consider diversity, equity and inclusion. Finally, the board should be composed of no more than 50% of one gender, the role of Chair or Deputy Chair should be filled by a female or gender diverse person, and the directors should be independent.^{Footnote 64}

Australia recently launched the National Gender Equity in Sport Governance Policy.^{Footnote 65} Subject to some exceptions, this policy requires all national and state sport organizations, as well as organizations receiving specified funding, to meet gender equity targets for their boards of directors by July 2027.^{Footnote 66} Equity, diversity and inclusion are also a key focus of Australia’s Sport Participation Strategy – Play Well^{Footnote 67} and Australia’s 2032+ High Performance Sport Strategy^{Footnote 68}.

Netherlands

In 2005, the Netherlands Olympic Committee introduced a Code of Good Sports Governance.^{Footnote 69} This followed the 2003 publication of a Code of Conduct in the corporate sector, which provided recommendations on several governance related matters to restore investor and citizen confidence in the corporate world.

The Code of Good Sports Governance targeted members of the Netherlands Olympic Committee. It was updated in 2021 and is based on four principles: responsibility, democracy, society and transparency.^{Footnote 70} All sport organizations in the Netherlands are now expected to comply with the Code.^{Footnote 71}

However, compliance with the Code is based on the “comply and explain” principle. The Code therefore offers room for flexibility according to each organization's own context. In this way, the Code provides a compass for the integrity and socially responsible governance of every sports organization in the Netherlands.^{Footnote 72} Directors and supervisors of sports organizations in the Netherlands account for compliance with the Code during the general meeting and in the annual report.^{Footnote 73}

Governance in sport organizations: preliminary findings and recommendations

To recognize and solidify the importance of good and effective governance across the sport system, we outline below the Commission’s preliminary recommendations and rationale. These recommendations aim to address the current shortcomings related to good governance within the sport system. We are of the view that it is essential that sport organizations' governance structures reflect specific competencies, capacities and consciousness to effectively address the array of complex issues that might emerge in sport settings.

In accordance with the Commission’s Terms of Reference, these preliminary recommendations are being shared to give participants an opportunity to reflect on them and provide feedback, whether through the National Summit or other forms of engagement, before the Commission submits its final recommendations to the Government of Canada. The Commission looks forward to continuing this important dialogue.

Our preliminary recommendations centre around four important concepts:

• Mandatory Governance Standards
• Enhanced Mandatory Governance Standards
• Governance Standards Compliance Oversight
• Harmonized Approach to Governance Standards Across the Sport System

Mandatory governance standards: preliminary findings

The Commission consistently heard that governance within the sport system is volunteer-led, with numerous directors on National Sport Organization boards being volunteers. Participants repeatedly stated that these volunteers often come from within the sport they represent (e.g., former athletes, coaches, parents of athletes, administrators). Given this reality, it is not surprising to learn about the significant governance challenges that exist within the sport system.

These challenges include a lack of essential skills, training and understanding of directors’ responsibilities, as well as the presence of real and perceived conflicts of interest. Furthermore, the lack of diversity, in terms of gender and ethnicity, highlights the necessity for a wider range of perspectives and experiences within the decision-making process. The lack of specific expertise in parasport within para boards of directors was also highlighted.

Participants also shared that the workload for boards of directors varies, depending on the size of the National Sport Organization, the directors’ skill set and governance experience. We understand that these individuals typically hold these positions in addition to their respective full-time employment, leaving them with limited time to commit to these positions. Given this reality, concerns have been shared with us that mandating standard sport governance requirements would add to the already demanding work for boards of directors to achieve compliance.

We were also informed that some National Sport Organizations might find it difficult, or even impossible, to comply with mandatory governance requirements due to their current governance structures. For example, if a current by-law does not align with the governance requirement, the sport organization would need to seek a change to the by-law. This is subject to the vote of the organization’s membership, often comprised of Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations. National Sport Organizations indicated that forcing these changes would be challenging. In other cases, it was suggested that a sport organization may be restricted from complying due to the specific requirements of its International Federation.

On the other hand, many of the issues participants raised regarding sport organizations could be resolved by implementing good governance practices. For example, conflicts of interest could be avoided by recruiting and selecting a diverse board of directors. Transparency and accountability could be achieved through the proactive and consistent publication of annual reports and itemized financial statements on an easily accessible and identifiable webpage.

In instances where a sport organization faced scrutiny, leading to an audit or examination, it often resulted in a review of the sport organization, including its governance structure. The reports stemming from these reviews provide recommendations to the organization to rectify and prevent the identified shortcomings. With respect to good governance, the recommendations usually refer to basic and accepted good governance principles, many of which are captured in the Canadian Sport Governance Code.

Further recognizing the importance of these governance requirements, it is worth noting that following the Minister’s announcement in 2023, some National Sport Organizations started working towards compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code. Now, Sport Canada requires all federally funded National Sport Organizations, national Multisport Service Organizations and Canadian Sport Centres to comply with four governance requirements outlined within the Code. In fact, the Commission was informed that at least 33 National Sport Organizations have now reported their compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code.

It is clear to the Commission that mandatory governance standards would increase consistency across all sport organization governance structures. This would provide guidance to boards of directors with varying degrees of sophistication in governance. With time, proper support, and compliance oversight, this would result in a stronger and more effective governance structures and practices within the sport system.

While compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code may present challenges, the Commission is of the view that measures can be implemented to alleviate these challenges. For example, the Canadian Sport Governance Code could incorporate language and approaches that recognize the differences, unique realities and varying internal governance and decision-making processes of sport organizations, which may currently prevent their compliance.

In addition, a transition period could be considered to provide sufficient time for sport organizations to comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code without impeding their eligibility for funding during the transition period. The length of this period could also take into consideration the capacity of a sport organization to comply. For example, a smaller sport organization may require a longer transition period than a larger sport organization.

Finally, recognizing that it may be a challenge for some organizations to achieve compliance with the Code, proper support and guidance should be made readily available to them to assist and accompany them in reaching compliance with the Code. It is worth noting that governance resources and courses tailored to not-for-profit organizations, developed by reputable institutions in Canada, are available.

It is also the Commission’s understanding that the Canadian Olympic Committee offers a free governance training program to National Sport Organizations, national Multisport Service Organizations and Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, delivered through a university-affiliated school of business. These resources should be leveraged by all sport organizations across Canada.

Mandatory governance standards: preliminary recommendations

Given the importance of governance, the Commission urges the Government of Canada to implement the recommendations 28 to 31 once the Commission’s Final Report is issued. This would begin the process of ensuring sport organizations comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code.

Once the Centralized Sport Entity discussed in Chapter 6 is established and operating, these responsibilities should be transferred to that Entity.

The Commission therefore recommends that:

28. The Government of Canada, mandate that all federally funded sport organizations adopt and comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code. This will require revisions to the Canadian Sport Governance Code, which is currently tailored to National Sport Organizations. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity outlined in Chapter 6 once it is established.
29. A reasonable transition period be provided to allow federally funded sport organizations to comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code without affecting their funding. This transition period should not apply to the governance requirements that are currently mandatory under the Sport Support Program for National Sport Organizations, national Multisport Service Organizations and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes.
30. The Government of Canada provide support, including funding, to federally funded sport organizations to comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity outlined in Chapter 6 once it is established.
31. The Government of Canada be the custodian of the Canadian Sport Governance Code and be responsible for its regular review to ensure it remains current and reflects evolving governance best practices. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity outlined in Chapter 6 once it is established.

Enhanced governance standards: preliminary findings

Several participants and governance experts have identified governance requirements that are not currently captured by the Canadian Sport and Governance Code or that do not go far enough in what is required of sport organizations. Support for enhancing the Canadian Sport Governance Code is found in the Cromwell Report, the Guide to Good Governance as well as reports from both the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Amending the requirements of the Canadian Sport Governance Code raises concerns similar to those discussed in the “Mandatory Governance Standards” section above. However, the Commission is of that view that when the Canadian Sport Governance Code becomes mandatory, certain amendments to the Code should be considered. We highlight below four amendments that should be considered.

Representative boards of directors

According to our analysis of Canada’s 2021 Census data, approximately 30% of the Canadian population identifies as either Black, Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC).^{Footnote 74} Despite this demographic, it was noted during our engagement activities that diversity is still not consistently reflected in the membership of sport organizations’ boards of directors.

Many shared with the Commission a concern regarding the lack of diverse voices at the decision-making tables, noting that several boards remain very insular and that the same individuals are repeatedly making the same decisions. Others expressed that boards of directors are not always a welcoming and inclusive environment for racialized individuals. For example, we heard of situations where racialized board members had to justify their experience and skill set for positions as director or officers. They were also overtly subjected to racism.

Diversity must be reflected at all levels of the sport system, including within boards of directors. For individuals from diverse communities to see themselves within a sport, they must see themselves within all structures of the sport, and more importantly, within leadership positions such as boards of directors. Change occurs at the decision-making table, and meaningful change is less likely to occur without diversity represented at that table.

Even if the Canadian Sport Governance Code is not mandatory, the Commission emphasizes that the Code does provide the following:

[...] each [National Sport Organization] should develop a policy for diversity at the board level. Diversity refers to the broad range of demographic characteristics that exists across Canadian society including, but not limited to, sex, gender identity, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, class, economic means, ability, age, official language of Canada spoken, religion and education. The board should report annually as to its approach and initiatives taken to attract directors with the required skills and diversity (including with respect to gender representation), whether it considers its initiatives successful and any additional steps the board will be making towards this objective.^{Footnote 75}

It was suggested that to bring about change, there needs to be clear expectations for board diversity. This would involve making diverse representation on boards of directors mandatory and creating opportunities for racialized individuals in leadership positions. Indeed, this was suggested by many.

Without a clear mandate, organizations are likely to respond that they are unable to achieve diverse representation. If it was a mandatory requirement, sport organizations would have no choice but to find a way to comply.

It was however acknowledged that the first racialized individuals to join boards of directors after the implementation of a mandated requirement might be perceived by some as reflecting tokenism rather than representing a merit-based appointment and the infusion of new skills. Despite this concern, members of racialized communities still believed that such an approach was necessary to achieve real change.

They also urged that any consideration for mandated representation of racialized people on boards of directors should be accompanied by support measures to ensure that these individuals remain in these positions. For instance, a supportive measure could involve ensuring anti-racism and inclusion training for members of the board and that a minimum of two members representing a racialized diversity is appointed.

Many have suggested that mandating the representation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour on board of directors would result in a board composition that is truly reflective of Canadian society. An alternative to this approach was also suggested: requiring boards of directors to adopt a statement outlining their strategy to achieve diversity at the board level, with a target of at least 30% of directors from the Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour communities.

To ensure that boards of directors fulfill their responsibilities to address diversity, it was suggested that sport organizations be required to report annually on the composition of their boards of directors. This report would be submitted to the organization’s governmental funder and to its membership at the annual general meeting.

The value and importance of diverse boards of directors are not a new concept. Both the Cromwell Report^{Footnote 76} and the reports from the Standing Committee on the Status of Women^{Footnote 77} noted the importance of ensuring that boards of directors reflect diversity.

The Commission recognizes that most sport organizations already have Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies and strategies. However, these policies and strategies, on their own, have largely not resulted in the desired changes ensuring a diversity of racialized representation on boards of directors.

Evidently, relying solely on voluntary or discretionary efforts has been insufficient to achieve racially diverse representation. To accelerate meaningful and measurable progress in board diversity, and to increase the representation of Black, Indigenous, People of Colour on sport organization boards of directors, the Commission is of the view that racial diversity must be included as an element in the skills matrix for board member selection.

In addition, to cultivate a welcoming, inclusive and safe board environment, anti-racism and inclusion board training must be delivered regularly. We are of the view that the proposal to mandate the representation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour on boards directors, merits further reflection and serious consideration given the importance of these matters.

Athlete representation

Athletes shared with the Commission that they hold a unique position within National Sport Organizations, given that these organizations exist to serve them. However, athletes are often not considered members of these sport organizations and have historically been excluded from formal governance structures, especially from boards of directors.^{Footnote 78}

Throughout our engagement activities, athletes have advocated for their representation within governance structures, complete with voting rights. Other participants noted the need to recognize the pluralities of individual stakeholders in the sport system, including coaches, officials and administrators.

Nevertheless, several participants raised concerns regarding athlete representation within National Sport Organization governance structures.

Some participants were concerned that athletes' interests may not always align with the broader interests of increasing participation and improving programming across the sport system.

We also heard that athletes’ personal interest with their sport might lead to conflicts of interest in decision-making. Some have suggested that conflicts of interest could be mitigated by having retired athlete representatives as opposed to active athletes. Others have suggested the possibility of having athlete representatives from both the parasport and non-parasport sectors of the sport, with their voting rights limited to decisions relating to the other sport. It was noted that this is only possible where the sport is integrated.

Another consideration identified by National Sport Organizations was the challenge raised by their current governance structures. The Commission learned that in some governance structures, by-laws prescribe that directors are elected by the National Sport Organization’s membership, which is comprised of Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations. These by-laws do not currently include a requirement for an athlete representative to serve as a director.

In this context, a vote of the membership would be necessary to change the by-laws to require that one of the directors be an athlete representative. Some National Sport Organizations expressed that it would be difficult for them to insist that their members, the Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, elect an athlete as director. This is because, arguably, it could lessen their ability to advance their own concerns at the National Sport Organization level.

These organizations explained that if an athlete representative position is mandated, candidates seeking to hold that position would only be competing with others vying for the same position. Some described this as the athlete representative effectively being elected without the “popular vote”. As an alternative to athlete representation on board of directors, some have suggested mechanisms to seek input from athletes and have athletes involved in committee work.

The Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, which forms the legislative framework, permits athlete representation on a board. This is allowed as long as the athlete representative meets the qualifications to be a director, and is either elected by the members or appointed by the board in accordance with the requirements of the Act.^{Footnote 79} It is also possible for a National Sport Organization to appoint an athlete representative to the position of board observer.

The Canadian Sport Governance Code, released in 2021, recognizes that meaningful athlete representation in the governance structure is fundamental.^{Footnote 80} While the Code strongly encourages National Sport Organizations to have an athlete representative on their board of directors, the decision on how to best achieve meaningful representation in the governance structure is left to each board.^{Footnote 81}

The Code further states that a National Sport Organization that decides not to have an athlete representative on its board must appoint at least one athlete representative as a board observer. Regardless of the approach selected by the board, a process for selecting an athlete representative with significant input from that sport’s athletes must be developed.^{Footnote 82}

Sport Canada’s Sport Support Program eligibility criteria released in 2024 requires National Sport Organizations to have a transparent and inclusive process for selecting an athlete representative on their board of directors.^{Footnote 83}

Confusion and uncertainty surrounding the requirement of athlete representation on boards of directors remains present. The importance of meaningful and true athlete representation within a sport governance structure and the decision-making processes was recognized in the Cromwell Report^{Footnote 84} and the reports of both Standing Committees. Given this recognized importance, we understand that some National Sport Organizations and national Multisport Service Organizations have taken steps to effect this change within their governance structures.

For all these reasons, the Commission is of the view that athlete representation on the board of directors of National Sport Organizations, national Multisport Service Organizations and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes as elected directors, with full voting rights, should be mandatory.

Mandatory training on preventing and addressing maltreatment in sport

The Commission heard numerous accounts from victims and survivors who felt that their experiences were inadequately addressed by the management or the board of directors of their sport organization. As a result, many felt they were often left without any clear guidance, and struggling to obtain recourse, redress or direction on how to proceed.

We heard numerous tragic accounts of athletes being silenced or shunned by organizations for having raised allegations of abuse or maltreatment. Sadly, these athletes were often considered troublemakers or accused of seeking retribution for their own shortcomings in training or performance.

The experiences shared with the Commission, combined with the findings and recommendations from the two Standing Committee’s studies on safe sport, the Cromwell Report, and the two McLaren Reports, all demonstrate that every individual within a National Sport Organization, including members of the board of directors, must have a comprehensive understanding of maltreatment issues and of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.

Support for such mandatory training is also found in Recommendation 17 of the Report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Both the Canadian Sport Governance Code^{Footnote 85} and the Sport Support Program funding eligibility criteria^{Footnote 86} require mandatory orientation and training for members of boards of directors on the fundamentals of good governance and board responsibilities.

The Commission is of the view that training focused on preventing and addressing maltreatment in sport, based on the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, must be part of the mandatory training for all sport organization’s boards of directors.

Financial transparency

As recipients of public funding, sport organizations are accountable not only to their funder but, more importantly, to Canadians. On numerous occasions, the Commission heard from participants who were unable to find key financial documents, such as annual statements, on sport organization websites. This lack of transparency and readily available information diminishes public trust.

We heard from many, including athletes, who advocated for full financial transparency regarding funds received from Sport Canada and the provision of detailed information as to how those funds are spent.

Maximizing transparency aligns with the principles of openness and accountability, which form the basis for one of the main good governance and leadership principles.^{Footnote 87} By proactively and consistently disclosing financial information, and sharing key governance-related information and documents, sport organizations can demonstrate the proper, effective, and efficient use of funds. This transparency will, in turn, bolster public trust, demonstrate accountability, and enhance confidence in the organization.

The call for transparent and accessible financial disclosure was raised by other participants, including governance experts. It was also referenced in the Cromwell Report,^{Footnote 88} as well as within Recommendation 4 of the Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.^{Footnote 89}

For these reasons, the Commission is of the view that consideration should be given to require sport organizations to post on their website the following three documents:

• board meeting minutes
• a document outlining all public funds received with a description of their respective usage
• an annual report describing the organization’s activity and progress

Enhanced governance standards: preliminary recommendations

The Commission therefore recommends that:

32. The Government of Canada enhance the Canadian Sport Governance Code by adding the following mandatory practices for all federally funded sport organizations:
    1. Racial diversity must be included as an element in the skills matrix used for selecting board members.
    2. All board members must receive regular training on anti-racism and inclusion.
    3. The board of directors must include an athlete representative to serve as a director with full voting rights.
    4. All board members must receive regular training on preventing and addressing maltreatment in sport based on the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.
       As outlined in Recommendation 37, the national safe sport education program, which would fall within the function of the Centralized Sport Entity once established, would address this requirement.

    5. Sport organizations publicly post the following on their website:

       1. minutes of all board meetings;
       2. an annual disclosure of all public funds received, along with an accounting of their usage;
       3. an annual report describing the organization’s activity and progress.

       These documents would be added to other documents that the Canadian Sport Governance Code requires sport organizations to publicly post on their website. This includes articles of incorporation or continuance, by-laws, annual financial statements, minutes of members meetings, board mandate, all committees’ terms of reference, and an annual report on diversity.

Governance standards oversight and compliance: preliminary findings

Participants in our engagement process noted that there is a clear lack of oversight over National Sport Organization governance practices. Such oversight is necessary to ensure compliance with good governance requirements. Some have raised concerns that Sport Canada dispenses public funds to these organizations without any oversight function. They are therefore calling for audits to verify that governance standards and best practices are in fact being applied. Many have also pointed out that while policies, practices, and procedures exist on paper, they are not always put into practice.

As stated above in the report, we recognize that a compliance function was created at Sport Canada. However, ensuring the implementation of good governance practices requires more than just asking sport organizations to self-report on compliance and submit supporting documentation. The verification process must go further to ensure that mandatory governance requirements are met. It is equally important to ensure that when a sport organization is struggling to fulfill its responsibilities that guidance and support should be provided to assist in remediation of any deficiencies.

To ensure compliance, the Commission believes it is crucial to conduct random and periodic governance audits examining sport organizations’ level of adherence to the Canadian Sport Governance Code. Given that these organizations receive significant taxpayer money, it is imperative to establish formal oversight mechanisms that consistently enforce the Code. This would ensure that National Sport Organizations are appropriately and efficiently governed. Ideally, this governance oversight function would fall outside of Sport Canada and reside within the Centralized Sport Entity discussed in Chapter 6.

The Canadian Sport Governance Code appears to currently reside on the Canadian Olympic Committee and the Sport Information Resource Centre websites. Several participants with whom the Commission met could not pinpoint the entity currently responsible for the Code, suggesting that it belongs to the sport community at large. Others believed that Sport Canada was the custodian of the Code. The lack of clarity on this point further demonstrates an absence of leadership in sport.

Collaboration, cooperation and engagement are important when developing a governance code. These principles ensure the code considers and reflects the realities of the organizations that it will govern. However, for a governance Code to stay relevant and have credibility within the sport community, it is essential that it resides with a single entity.

The Commission is of the view that an Independent Entity responsible for the governance compliance oversight of National Sport Organizations should also be the custodian of the Canadian Sport Governance Code and its regular review.

Governance standards oversight and compliance: preliminary recommendations

The Commission therefore recommends that:

33. The Government of Canada conduct regular audits of federally funded sport organizations to ensure the implementation of and the compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity outlined in Chapter 6 once it is established.

Governance at all levels of sport: preliminary findings

Throughout its engagement activities, the Commission observed a misconception among some participants that National Sport Organizations have authority and control over Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations.

When asked, National Sport Organizations reiterated time and time again that their scope and mandate are limited to national activities. Some also explained that Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations are often members within their governance structure. As members, these Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations elect the board of directors.

National Sports Organizations pointed out that this structure gives them little power or control beyond their national governance structure, which leads to ineffective governance throughout. Some participants told us that there is a “bottleneck” at the provincial and territorial level, explaining that efforts made at the national level barely filter down to the provincial and territorial level, even less to the community level.

The reality remains that Canada’s sport system extends beyond National Sport Organizations, to the Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, and then to the community or local level. The Commission acknowledges that to ensure a consistent approach to governance across the sport system, requirements that apply to National Sport Organizations should also apply to Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations and the Community Sport Organizations. In fact, many participants the Commission met with advocated for such an approach.

In Chapter 3 of this report, we provided an overview of the division of powers between the federal government and provinces and territories as outlined in the Constitution Act 1867. ^{Footnote 90} Given this division of powers, we believe that standardizing and harmonizing sport governance practices can only be achieved through meaningful collaboration between both levels of government.

Below are options the Commission considered to align governance standards across all levels of sport in Canada. The purpose of this exercise is to provide participants an opportunity to deliberate on the proposed approaches, whether at the National Summit or through other forms of engagement, before the Commission submits its final recommendations to the Government of Canada.

As we discuss options for the standardization of sport governance practices across the sport system, from the national to the provincial, territorial and community level, we recognize that provinces and territories have their own legislation governing not-for-profit organizations and their own funding requirements. While some of these requirements may prevent a provincial or territorial sport organization from fully adopting the Canadian Sport and Governance Code, an amended version of the Code (the “amended version”) tailored to the particularities of each province or territory could be adopted.

Governance at all levels of sport: preliminary recommendations

Option 1: Using the spending power to implement uniform governance standards

The Commission therefore recommends that:

34. The Government of Canada use its spending power to achieve greater uniformity of sport governance standards between the federal and the provincial and territorial levels of sport. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity outlined in Chapter 6 once it is established.

To standardize and strengthen all sport governance structures so they can competently and effectively manage and respond to maltreatment and safe sport complaints, the Commission strongly endorses the implementation of the Canadian Sport Governance Code at all levels of the sport system.

Each of the elements discussed below would improve sport governance issues on its own. However, an approach combining each of these elements would have the most comprehensive impact. This approach would help address the persistent issues of internal governance of sport organizations in a consistent manner across national, provincial and territorial sport governing bodies and this throughout the Canadian sport system.

We note that the approach outlined in the first three elements below has been previously put forward and supported by leading scholars in the field of sport.^{Footnote 91}

Compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code as a membership condition for federally funded National Sport Organizations

As already outlined in Recommendation 28, the Government of Canada should mandate that all sport organizations receiving federal funding adopt and comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code. Additionally, the Government of Canada could mandate that federally funded National Sport Organizations modify their membership rules to require that their members (the Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations) also adopt and comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code or its amended version as a condition of membership.

We recognize that this approach would have a limited reach. It would only encompass federally funded National Sport Organizations and their respective Provincial or Territorial Sport Organizations, leaving out several unfunded sport organizations. In addition, some larger, well-funded Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations may not need to be affiliated with their National Sport Organizations. They could therefore refuse to comply with this membership requirement and revoke their membership. This approach, on its own, may therefore not result in meaningful change.

Adoption of the Canadian Sport Governance Code as a funding condition for Provincial or Territorial Sport Organizations

To further expand the scope of adoption and compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code or its amended version, the Government of Canada could use its spending power to indirectly impose governance requirements on Provincial or Territorial Sport Organizations and Community Sport Organizations.

This could be achieved through the funding agreements between the Government of Canada and provincial and territorial governments. These agreements could condition funding intended for Provincial, Territorial and Community Sport Organizations on compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code or its amended version.^{Footnote 92} Once again, if successful, this approach would have limited impact as it would only apply to Provincial, Territorial and Community Sport Organizations receiving federal funding.

For an even broader application of the Canadian Sport Governance Code or its amended version, the Government of Canada could also encourage provincial or territorial government to mandate that all provincial or territorial sport organizations adopt and comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code or its amended version as a condition of receiving provincial or territorial funding.

Provinces and territories could also mandate that provincially or territory funded sport organizations modify their membership rules to require that all their members (the Community Sport Organizations) adopt and comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code or its amended version as a condition of membership. This approach would broaden the application of sport governance standards beyond Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations that are members of federally funded National Sport Organizations.

Incentives for National, Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations

To incentivize National Sport Organizations to change their membership requirements, the Government of Canada could allocate funding according to the extent to which their members have adopted and complied with the Canadian Sport Governance Code or its amended version.

Finally, through its funding, the Government of Canada could incentivize provinces and territories to determine the level of funding they allocate to Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations based on the extent to which their members adopted and complied with the Canadian Sport Governance Code or its amended version.

Additional funding to help with compliance

National Sport Organizations, provinces and territories may not have the resources and capacity to monitor governance compliance by their members or funded sport organizations. Therefore, the Government of Canada could allocate additional funding for this purpose.

Option 2: Using collaboration to establish uniform governance standards

The Commission therefore recommends that:

35. The Government of Canada collaborate with the provincial and territorial governments to establish and legislate similar federal and provincial/territorial sport governance standards. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity outlined in Chapter 6 once it is established.

Another option would be for the Government of Canada to reach an agreement with the provincial and territorial governments for a collaborative framework. Through this framework, both levels of government would each enact legislation prescribing similar sport governance standards based on the Canadian Sport Governance Code.

This approach would require significant coordination and collaboration. However, if successful, it could harmonize and standardize sport governance practices across all levels of sport at the national, provincial, territorial, and community levels. Given this approach is collaborative in nature, it is possible that some provinces or territories refuse to “opt-in” and choose to legislate in their respective jurisdiction.

Conclusion on governance

Good governance lies at the heart of any healthy, safe, and effective system. It should be welcomed and encouraged by everyone as a shared commitment to uphold the basic principles of transparency, accountability, and fairness. Complying with good governance should not be seen as a burden, but rather as a basic standard that serves to protect society and benefits all those involved in the sport system. By implementing good governance principles, organizations will mitigate risks and improve the way they respond and handle maltreatment and safe sport complaints.

However, we are also mindful that volunteers lead the governance structures within sport organizations. It is increasingly difficult to recruit and retain these dedicated individuals, who tirelessly serve the sport organizations they govern. Consequently, imposing new governance requirements will demand significant time, effort, and resources. Appropriate resources will have to be allocated to ensure compliance with these requirements.