M5 Systemic Contributors to Maltreatment in Sport

Evidence of Systemic Maltreatment

Prevalence Studies

Key Findings Across Studies

1. Rates of harm are relatively consistent globally

2. Psychological harm is most frequently reported

3. Neglect was sometimes grouped w/ psychological harm in earlier studies, lacking distinct numbers

4. Early studies lacked standardized surveys, leading to variations in categorization (e.g. one Quebec study categorized “exercise as punishment” as psychological harm)

Shift in Narrative

Not “Bad Apples”: The prevalence (e.g. 70% emotional abuse, 28% sexual harm, 30-33% physical harm) indicates it’s not isolated “evil” individuals, but a systemic problem

Multiple Victims and Perpetrators: Athletes can be victims; coaches are not the sole perpetrators (for instance, sexual harm is often reported from peers)

Cross-Discipline/Sport: Maltreatment is not specific to one sport (e.g. gymnastics, bobsled, diving, soccer, rugby) or country

Core Issue: Questions the culture of sport (Canadian and global) that tolerates and enables such environments

Systemic Contributors (Roberts, Sojo, and Grant 2019)

1. Structural Factors

2. Social Factors

3. Organizational Factors

Structural Factors

Formal and informal parameters in an organization

1. Power Imbalance

2. Winner-Takes-All / Own the Podium

3. Isolation

Power Imbalance

Gap between athlete’s voice and coach’s authority

• Normalization: Athletes feel unable to speak up or refuse harmful treatment due to normalized power dynamics

• Lost Opportunities: Fear of losing scholarships, team sports, or career prospects

• Coach Success: Successful coaches (e.g. Olympic athletes, high win rates) are often excused, their methods deemed correct despite internal harm

Winner-Take-All Format

Winning brings benefits: honours, sponsorships, recognition, prize money

Canadian Sport Funding Historical Context:

• Majority of national-level sports funded by Sport Canada (federal government)

• Budget Stagnation: Budgets remained constant for ~20 years (late 2000s until recently), while costs increased

• Recent Investment: Secretary of Sport van Koeverden, announced an increase of $168 million in funding (historic, first since late 2000s)

• Athlete Funding: Increased 2 years ago, but still around $20,000/year (often sole income for full-time athletes), leading to reliance on sponsors, parents, or going into debt

Own the Podium

Mandate: Provides additional funding for organizations with Olympic/Paralympic medal potential

Impact: Created a “win at all costs” mentality

• Organizations (esp smaller ones reliant on scarce funding) need OTP money to sustain themselves

• Pressure to demonstrate medal potential means pressuring coaches to produce winning athletes

• Belief that “harder push = better performance” (though debunked)

• Diminishes other aspects of sport enjoyment

Isolation

Particularly in winter sports, athletes may spend extended periods away from home (half the year) for training/competition

• Closed Circuits: There’s limited oversight

• Rule of Two Limitation: Two coaches collaborating against one athlete can put the athlete at further risk

Social Factors

1. Conformity of Dominant Values

2. Belief in Instrumental Effects of Maltreatment

3. Organizational Norms

Conformity of Dominant Values

Sport Ethic

Belief in specific athlete behaviours (e.g. self-sacrifice for sport, commitment)

• Athletes internalize that they must do anything to be an athlete

Masculinity

• Strong link between sports and demonstrated masculinity (e.g. hockey, football)

• Aggression, dominance, heteronormativity are common descriptions

• Relates to hegemonic masculinity and cultural norms turning a blind eye to certain behaviours (e.g. “triangle” of sexual maltreatment lecture)

• Research on hockey players persona and its link to cultures of sexual violence

Historical Success

• Coaches who consistently win are often given “leeway,” involving turning a blind eye towards their problematic behaviours

Belief in Instrumental Effects of Maltreatment

Rationalization of behaviours as “necessary or useful” for performance

Organizational Norms

Bystander Inaction: Lack of intervention from those aware of maltreatment

Preventing Close Relationships:

• Policies like the Rule of Two aim to prevent one-on-one communication, but coaches expressed concerns about impacting athlete relationships

• Evidence suggests coaches can maintain close relationships while respecting boundaries

Role Ambiguity

Depersonalization of the Athlete: Treating athletes as machines, warriors, invincible, or tools for performance, rather than as humans with needs and limits

Brofenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory

Model that examines individual factors, different types of relationships, and their dynamic interactions across five environmental systems

1. Microsystem

2. Mesosystem

3. Exosystem

4. Macro System

5. Chronosystem

Microsystem

Deals with the individual person

• Examples of impacting factors

  • Demographics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual identity)

  • Health and status

  • Psychological (e.g. personality, confidence levels, mental health)

  • History (past history w abuse, history of violence)

  • Sport Experience (previous positive or negative experiences in sport

• Vulnerability: These factors can increase or deccrease an individual’s vulnerability to maltreatment

Mesosystem

Interactions between a person and their immediate surroundings; individual development impacted by direct relationships

Examples: Family, school, church, peers, coaches, teammates

Dynamics:

• Authority: Power dynamics within these relationships (e.g. coach’s authority)

• Parental Role: parents’ behaviours (supportive, turning a blind eye, yelling, giving wrong messages, consenting to coach behaviours)

• Critical vs Non-Critical Relationships: Differences in closeness and impact

Exosystem

Interactions between different microsystems, influencing the individual indirectly (e.g. interactions between family and peers; what the individual sees and the messages they receive)

Examples:

• physio and coach witnessing harm and interacting (or not) about it

• Parents consenting to or justifying coach’s behaviours

Expectations and Tolerance:

• parents socialized to tolerate behavoiurs, turning a blind eye

• justifying coaches’ actions (“coach knows best”)

Example:

• Tampa Bay Lightning coach making misogynistic comments; previously tolerated, now criticized due to evolving social norms leading to apology

Macrosystem

Larger systems at play such as policies, media, and industries, not necessarily individual interactions

Examples:

• Policies and procedures regarding background screenings, reference checks, police checks

• UCCMS (prior to this, no widespread policies existed before for maltreatment, especially for emotional abuse)

• Duty to Report: Legal obligation to report suspected child abuse

• Onboarding and Education (gaps between research and practice/coach education)

• Reporting system availability and accessibility

Chronosystem

Ideologies, culture, cultural values, socioeconomic conditions, and the recognition of cultural changes over time

Examples:

• Mass media and how maltreatment is portrayed (e.g. “exercise as punishment” in movies)

• Sport Exceptionalism: belief that sport is unique and should be self-regulated, often circumventing broader legal systems (e.g. Sport Dispute and Resolution Centre of Canada, faster appeals for athletes). This can lead to reliance on sport norms over general social norms

• Masculinity and Sport Ethic

• Performance Outcomes: Cultural focus on winning

Proto-System

Cultural changes over time

• Things acceptable 10-15 years ago are less so now (Me Too movement, Gymnast Alliance, social media, increased media coverage)

• e.g. emotional abuse was not recognized in sport discourse previously

Stirling and Kerr Diagram (adapted from Brofenbrenner)

1. Individual Level: Unrealistic performance expectations, poor management skills, other life events

2. Microsystem: Close coach-athlete relationships, “more is better” belief

3. Mesosystem: Isolation, lack of monitoring

4. Macrosystem: Cultural acceptance of violence/aggression, media messages not condemning abuse, performance-based culture

All these factors combine to create a unhealthy environment

Mini Presentations

Various mini presentations occur from here on