Organizations and individuals are frequently re-learning that posting something on social media ensures the near-permanent existence of that material.  A tweet that is posted six months ago can be easily found by an intrepid researcher.  A picture that is posted to Facebook never really goes away. These reasons underscore why we need to be especially careful about our social media use.

We’ve written about defamation before – and it is worth remembering that even if something posted online was deleted, the length of time that it was posted is still a factor when determining publication and damage to a person’s reputation.

Professional golfer Phil Mickelson recently decided to go after an anonymous commenter on a Yahoo sports story who, among other character attacks, alleged that Mickelson fathered an illegitimate child. Mickelson first asked Yahoo for the ISP of the commenter (who was Quebec-based), then went to court in Quebec to force the ISP to disclose the identity of the commenter, and the Court recently agreed that Mickelson was entitled to know the commenter’s identity. Presumably, Mickelson intends to sue for defamation.

But defamatory comments are not restricted to professional sports athletes. In 2008, a well-known Canadian NSO leader was labeled “incompetent” and “inept” in an extended diatribe posted on a sport-specific forum by a slighted former athlete. This leader has since moved on from that position – but the posts remain.  Anyone searching for the leader’s name may come across this forum and see these posts.

Similarly, the Canadian Soccer Association and the Alberta Soccer Association are the subjects of a nasty attack website, which alleges a number of conduct issues within those organizations.

We’ve written about organizations’ problems with disgruntled members, and these types of isolated postings are almost certainly the work of members who have perceived (rather than actual) grievances.  But a random reader who stumbles upon these websites does not know the context.  To the new visitor, these sites and posts could represent legitimate and widespread opinions.

Organizations and individuals can be affected by postings in different ways. The two previous examples of Phil Mickelson and the NSO leader describe defamation – but member conduct is also an issue.

A former player from a CJHL hockey team posted a story on his blog where he (after identifying himself and his former team) describes himself: hazing rookie team members in the locker room, forcing rookie players to drink and perform degrading activities, driving drunk, and ripping the pants off a girl and then having sexual intercourse with her while she screamed in pain.

A young minor volleyball athlete posted a photo on Twitter of herself bringing many bottles of alcohol into the team lockerroom; intended for team-wide consumption after a practice. Her Twitter feed also included tweets where she insulted opponents, swore frequently, and allegedly threatened opposing team members’ parents.

What can an organization or an individual do?

In instances where the posted conduct is illegal (as in the case of the hockey player and, possibly, in the case of the defamation) the organization should review the Criminal Code and consider taking a complaint directly to the police.

But in instances where member conduct is an issue, an organization or individual should take as many proactive steps as possible.  Education about the permanency and non-privacy of social media is the very first step, especially with younger athletes.  Members must be aware that their postings on social media are public and subject to the organization’s Code of Conduct and Discipline policy (two policies that every organization should have and enforce).

In our view, an organization’s Code of Conduct and Discipline policy should address conduct that occurs outside of “sanctioned” activities. We recently noticed an incident where an organization basically ignored the conduct of its players (who were alleged to have committed rape) and claimed the party at which the incident occurred was “non-sanctioned”.  Actually, any conduct by a member, at any time, reflects on the organization – so it is sensible for the organization to always monitor its representatives’ conduct.  A recent notable example of an athlete violating a Code of Conduct is the case of the Water Polo Canada athlete who was suspended by the organization and denied funding for two years because of his participation in the 2010 Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver.  Strong conduct deterrents can help manage negative behaviour – in both sanctioned and non-sanctioned activities – and in social media communication.

Individuals have a tougher time of managing their online identities and reputations, but can also take proactive steps.  Regularly google yourself.  Not simply by googling your name, but by googling your name in connection with your sport, alongside the names of other members, and in connection with previous controversial incidents in which you may have been involved.  If you find evidence of possible defamation, you can contact forum moderators, alert ISPs, or even hire private companies that specialize in cleansing online identities.

The Canadian NSO leader who was allegedly defamed in a forum should be aware of the posts (and was), should be prepared to refute any of the allegations if they happen to come up a job interview, and may consider proactively disclosing possible defamation that may exist somewhere online.  Further, even after four years, it may still be possible (though perhaps unlikely) to get the posts deleted or make them harder to access.

Ultimately, despite the permanent nature of social media, taking a proactive approach can help manage individuals’ and organizations’ online identities. Even after time has passed, steps can be taken to minimize the damage of negative social media postings.

If you ever need access to the material or advice posted on our website… remember that the material posted here will always, always be accessible.

The True Sport Fellowship offers an opportunity for an accomplished sport leader in the Canadian sport community to engage other sector leaders in exploring how we can better use sport and physical activity to address emerging opportunities and challenges.

Dina will complete a True Sport Fellowship on Leadership Development.

The full press release is available on the True Sport Foundation website.   Congratulations Dina!

1.  What has been the main change, between 1994 and 2012, in how sport organizations handle harassment issues?

There is definitely more awareness today than there was 18 year ago. When we wrote Harassment in Sport in 1994, there were virtually no resources on this topic that were applicable to sport, and certainly, few or no sport organizations had any policies. We actually adapted these materials from leading-edge work on harassment being done in academic environments. Shirley Voyna-Wilson (Harassment Officer at the University of Calgary) and Sandra Kirby (Researcher at the University of Winnipeg) were early leaders in this field. Since authoring this document, it has become standard practice for sport organizations to have a Harassment Policy and in fact, almost all funding agencies now require organizations to address harassment in their policy framework as a condition of receiving funding.

2.  What has changed in law?

Well, both legislation and common law have evolved. In legislation, we have seen the Criminal Code revised to reflect the crime of ‘criminal harassment’, or stalking, and we have also raised the age of consent and clarified the ‘close-in-age’ rule that applies to sexual relationships with and between young people. In Ontario, we have recently seen the introduction of legislation to address workplace safety and violence. On the common law front, the standard of care continues to be elevated and the Supreme Court of Canada has rendered some significant rulings related to how organizations should plan and deliver programs to better anticipate and manage the risk of harm to young people, or other vulnerable persons. There is also a far greater awareness of bullying and there are some very accessible and practical resources and tools to help people address bullying behaviour. Many of these have come from scholastic settings.

3.  The word ‘hazing’ does not appear in this 1994 handbook – but now many organizations have a ‘hazing policy’.  Sport organizations in 2012 seem more aware of hazing and harassment in general.  What are some things that have resulted from this increased awareness (e.g., have instances of harassment decreased)?

I think it became standard practice to view hazing as a form of harassment around year 2000. That’s about when I started to write it into policies. Certainly, people in sport are more aware of ugly behaviour (harassment, bullying, hazing, sexual misconduct) today than they were in the 1990s. But does this mean ugly behaviour has diminished? Likely not. It has just become more clandestine. I continue to be amazed when otherwise sensible sport people turn a blind eye to appalling behaviour. In my December blog post, I wrote that “All the laws, policies, standards, protocols, rules, screening systems and police checks in the world don’t protect vulnerable people from harm. The only thing that protects those people, who cannot protect themselves, is other people“. Our main focus should be on educating, changing attitudes, and supporting those people who have the courage and conviction to intervene when it is called for.

4. In the 1994 handbook, you wrote about the many myths of harassment.  Are there any new myths that you would add for 2012?

The myths set out in 1994 still prevail in some quarters. As to new myths… I think any discussion today about harassment and related behaviours must take into account the internet and social media. For example, I don’t think the amount of school-based bullying has necessarily increased from one generation to the next, but I think the impact of bullying on kids today is far greater because there is no escape from it. When I was a kid, I could go home at the end of the school day and be in a safe space, at least until the next morning. Kids today don’t have that escape valve – through Facebook, texting and other computer-mediated communication, the bullying continues 24/7.

5.  Should sport organizations still have a stand-alone Harassment Policy?

Actually, no. Harassment now has a more precise legal definition. My experience is that much of the behaviour that people categorize as harassment is not actually harassment. It is behaviour that we can broadly categorize as misconduct. For about five years now I have been advocating eliminating stand-alone harassment policies, and I instead favour the creation of comprehensive codes of member conduct and accompanying procedures to address misconduct. For example, having a Code of Conduct combined with a Discipline and Complaints Policy, and ensuring that this Code captures all kinds of misconduct, including harassment. A number of NSOs have followed my lead and have had good success in promoting positive member behaviour through the use of these simpler, yet more comprehensive policy tools.

6.  In 1994, were sport organizations reluctant to adopt harassment policies or policies in general?  Comparatively, in 2012, are organizations more accepting of having policies? 

I don’t think there was a reluctance to adopt policies, rather there was limited awareness of the importance of good policies. I have always said that policies are your friend, not your foe – they are a road map for when the road gets bumpy. Frankly, in the amateur sport world I think that the Centre for Sport and Law (as we were known then), was partially responsible for raising the awareness of the need for policy documents. We pushed that agenda quite hard, and there was a good legal case to be made to have policies for such things as safety, team selection, coach and athlete conduct, and so on. But there is a pendulum – and the pendulum is swinging back to a reasonable middle ground. I remember when Athletics Canada had four or five different policies that addressed different aspects of conduct, and it was confusing for everyone and also put the organization in a precarious position. So we took those policies, broke them down, and re-consolidated them into a single (and far simpler) document. I think we have too many policies now, and not enough common sense, problem-solving, or communication.

7.  Besides Facebook and social media policies, are you seeing any trends or developments?  Are there any policies that proactive organizations could adapt now to stay ahead of the curve?

Certainly every organization should carefully review its policies and determine if it can, through careful consolidation, have fewer of them. A truly proactive organization lives its core values, focuses on communication and education, and invests in professional development for its staff and volunteers. So I think an explicit commitment to ‘live the values’ of the organization can go a long way to changing how people think and act. If an organizational value is respect, and if that value is widely shared, discussed, reflected upon and reinforced, then it is far less likely that people will behave disrespectfully, and it is therefore less necessary for an organization to rely on its policies to solve a problem. A proactive organization should be attempting to pre-empt its issues so that policies are needed only in rare cases.

To date we have written extensively about the impacts that the NFP Act will have on membership classes and board structures. These are the main issues that NSOs and MSOs will need to address in order to become compliant with the NFP Act by 2014. However, there are many other seemingly smaller changes that organizations will have to consider as they transition to the new regime, and we thought it would be helpful to share some of them.

Having just attended the Rowing Canada Aviron AGM for the 2011 year (held in January of 2012) it has become apparent to me that many summer sports will have to rethink the timing of the membership meeting. Section 160(1) of the Act, read in conjunction with Section 61(2) of the Regulation makes it clear that organizations must hold their AGM not only within a certain period of the last AGM but also within a certain period of time from the fiscal year end. The former Canada Corporations Act only stipulated that the AGM must be held within 15 months of the previous AGM. The new NFP Act requires this (although the window of time is 18 months, not 15 months), while also requiring that the AGM be held within six months of fiscal year end, which for the vast majority of NSOs and MSOs, is March 31st. (There are a few exceptions – Golf Canada, Alpine Canada Alpin, Canadian Colleges Athletic Association, Canadian Interuniversity Sport are some examples).

This means that AGMs cannot be held after September 30th. We know that many summer sport NSOs hold their AGMs after this date, due to the fact that the summer is a very busy time for their sport. Many summer sports have advised us that it may be difficult and impractical to organize an AGM before September 30th, particularly when the AGM is more than just a straightforward business meeting but is also a leadership development, recognition, advocacy and marketing event. It may be necessary for many summer sports to rethink the purpose and delivery of their AGM.

There is provision in the Act that an organization may apply to Industry Canada for relief from these requirements, but a case would have to be made that members are not prejudiced by any delay. As the underlying premise of the NFP Act is member empowerment, we have no real sense of how likely it is that an organization would be granted this relief.

Winter sports, and those NSOs or MSOs holding AGMs in June, don’t get off the hook very easily either. A reading of Section 175(1) of the Act with Section 77 of the Regulation states that audited financial statements must be provided to the members no later than 21 days before the AGM. To hold an AGM before mid-June, audited statements must be ready by mid-May, which is a challenge when the fiscal year ends March 31st.  We know from experience that audited financial statements are often not ready until just before the members meeting. This will be a challenge for many NSOs and small MSOs, and will tax their administrative capacity.

Also on the financial front, not related to the NFP Act but a concurrent development, is that the Income Tax Act has now been revised to create different rules for former RCAAAs. In a nutshell, RCAAAs have until now enjoyed special status as charities, relieved of many of the disclosure and reporting rules that apply to mainstream charities. This special treatment has now ended. CAAAs (Canadian Amateur Athletic Associations), as they are now called, must follow the same rules as everyone else.

Also, and this is very significant from a governance perspective, their objects must be exclusively charitable as opposed to primarily charitable. Therefore, as part of the process of becoming compliant with the NFP Act, every NSO and MSO should ensure that their objects are clearly and exclusively charitable. This should not be a problem for most NSOs and MSOs, although organizations like Golf Canada, Canadian Curling Association and Skate Canada, which all manage large commercial properties, will need to do some finessing. The same might be true of the Canadian Olympic Committee.

Feel free to contact us at the Sport Law & Strategy Group if you have questions about the NFP Act, changes to the Income Tax Act, or the forthcoming corporations legislation in Ontario.

Sometimes the most innocuous situations create the biggest problems. This was true in a recent case that took place in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Thanks to Andre Gallant, CEO of the YMCA of Cape Breton, for sending along details of the case and the comment. The case involved tape on the floor of a gymnasium – something we see all the time. Tape is very often used to mark off gym floors for all kinds of purposes such as to indicate the outline of a particular court or placement of equipment. And typically, the tape is left in place for future use.

The gymnasium in question is part of the Citadel Community Centre in Halifax owned by the municipality and attached to Citadel High School. The school board uses the gym during the day and the municipality uses it evenings and weekdays.

During the day, duct tape had been used on the floor near the boundary lines of a badminton court.  In the evening, a participant playing badminton caught her shoe on the tape and suffered a torn meniscus in her knee. Arthroscopic surgery was required and a lengthy convalescence ensued. The municipality was responsible for cleaning the community centre, including the gym, and knew that the tape had been placed on the floor during the day.

Clearly the municipality owed a “duty of care” to the participant to ensure she was reasonable safe while playing badminton. The Court quoted a prior Ontario case (Burrough v. Kapuskasing (Town), which dealt with the condition of a tennis court) in describing the “standard of care” or conduct that was needed by the municipality to fulfill its responsibility:

The Municipality in providing facilities for the playing of tennis must ensure that such facilities can be used in safety for that purpose. Tennis is an activity which requires physical exertion on the part of the participants. In the instant case, the plaintiff sustained his injuries not as a result of his play but as a result of the deteriorated condition of the court. The courts were in my view dangerous premises, keeping in mind the purpose for which they were constructed; i.e. the active use of the premises.

The Court in this Halifax case found the municipality negligent in its care of the facility and awarded the participant damages in the amount of $30,000. It said  the tape on the floor was a foreseeable hazard to badminton players and that a reasonable cleaning and/or inspection of the surface would have resulted in the detection and removal of the duct tape.

The badminton player had no knowledge of the prior use of tape on the gym floor and, according to the Court, it was not a hazard she would have reasonably expected to occur and thus would not have kept a lookout for such a hazard. She was therefore not contributorily negligent for not inspecting the floor for tape.

The Court stated that the municipality should have had a daily routine, or system, of inspecting and cleaning the floor after the day use and before evening use of the gym. It now does!

It is amazing how many of these relatively small lawsuits occur each year – injuries often caused by seemingly small carelessness or oversights. It is always useful to be reminded about the small things…

Rachel:  I continue to assist NSOs and MSOs prepare for compliance with the federal Not-for-Profit Corporations Act.  Many sport organizations have taken the opportunity to review their by-laws and governance structures and I believe that this will be a continuing trend in 2012.  As organizations take this Act more seriously, and learn more about it, we should also see a number of organizations voluntarily strengthening their other governing documents – including their mission, vision, and values statements. Plus let’s not forget that it’s an Olympic year, and I expect to be busy managing internal appeals of selection decisions. Remember that the best way to avoid these appeals is by properly following clear selection criteria!

Hilary: This year I am on sabbatical within the Department of Sport Management at Brock University and I am looking forward to doing a lot of reading and writing. I just finished writing a chapter about the women’s ski jumping case (which occurred prior to the 2010 Winter Olympics) for a book on landmark sport law cases, and I am working on a piece about the legal issues surrounding the “Athlete Biological Passport” program in which athletes must now participate as part of anti-doping efforts. While new legal issues continually emerge in sport (and we work hard to stay on top of them), some of the old ones repeat but with new twists and turns. The day-to-day legal concerns (discrimination, social media, contract interpretation, policy application, human resources, and negotiation) all continue to engage and provide fodder for deeper thought and understanding. This is always interesting and on-going.

Dina: Coaching isn’t just on the field of play! The for-profit sector employs executive coaches to help valued employees gain important leadership skills. This year I’ve enrolled in a professional coaching certification program that will help me broaden my own knowledge in the area of human development, with a view of ‘sportifying’ professional coaching for sport leaders. Check back soon to see what I have to say about leadership, human performance, and sustainable change.

Steve:  Policy review!  The last couple of months have seen a sharp spike in the number of organizations (Provincial and National) coming to us with policy review questions.  If your organization’s policies are over five years old, then it’s time for a policy review. We’ve been asked to update and rewrite over 60 policies in the last three months – and this is a trend that we expect will continue in 2012. Also, like Rachel, I expect to be spending more time in the coming months helping organizations manage disputes relating to Olympic Team selection.

LeeAnn:  The Ontario Not-for-Profit Act (the province’s version of the federal Act) is expected to come into force in mid-2012.  We’ve already given presentations on the subject to PSOs and we are excited to see that many organizations are taking compliance with the Act very seriously.  Since so many sport organizations are eager and ahead of the curve – we expect that 2012 will see a big focus on the Ontario NFP Act. Sport organizations based in Ontario will also be looking for assistance to become compliant with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which came into force on January 1^st.

Kevin:  I’m carefully watching the new Facebook. The Facebook ‘timeline’ dredges up all your past Facebook activity and presents it in the middle of your profile.  We are reminded that the ‘past’ doesn’t stay buried on Facebook and I’m sure this will spur privacy-related calls for the permanent deletion of user-data.  Also, by now most organizations have started to get comfortable with social media, and this familiarity will likely be the basis for unique social media engagement by innovative sport organizations.

I have just finished reading Theo Fleury’s book, Playing With Fire. I have owned this book for two years, but never took it off my shelf. However, in the wake of the Penn State sex abuse scandal, and the revelation that Scouts Canada has been quietly keeping it’s own registry of pedophiles, I pulled Fleury’s book down and started to read.

This is a great book. It’s not great literature by any means, it’s not even good literature, but a more honest memoir I have not encountered. Added to this is the fact that I lived in Calgary during Fleury’s rookie season with the Flames when they won the Stanley Cup, and this self-described “little f***er” was an amazing talent to watch. Reading his book took me right back to those heady days of Flames hockey. I also gained a whole new appreciation of how far tenacity, discipline and hard work can take someone.

But back to the real storyline of this book – how the unchecked actions of a disgusting pedophile can destroy a life. Or in Fleury’s case, nearly destroy a life. And more significantly, how people in positions to know and to act choose to do nothing, content to be passive bystanders, or worse, enablers. By the mid-1990s it was widely known that Graham James was a creep, yet a hockey league invited him to put together a group of investors to create a new junior team, the Calgary Hitmen, and then installed him as head coach. What were they thinking, putting James in charge of a program for wide-eyed 15 and 16 year-old boys?

In Playing With Fire, Fleury describes the reaction of his trusted friend, Chuck Matson, upon getting a hint of James’ dirty past. This was during a Hitmen try-out camp and over a hundred kids were going through their paces in a rink with James. Matson was horrified and within 24 hours had convinced the ownership group to fire James and send him packing. Matson is a hero, as far as I am concerned – I wish all grown-ups would act this decisively and with such conviction.

Reading this reminded me of being in the UK nearly 20 years ago presenting at a sports conference. Swimming England had just hired a young new CEO and there were substantiated rumours floating about that a child molester was coaching in the sport. This new CEO, in his youthful righteousness, travelled the length of his small country to march this coach right off the pool deck and out of the building. After, he stated publicly that if he had not acted, he believed he would have utterly failed in his responsibility as a leader in the sport. People applauded, no-one was sued, and it is safe to assume that a lot of children were spared terrible future harm.

So what’s my point? I have done a similar rant before.  Over two hundred and fifty years later, Edmund Burke has never been so right: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. Penn State, Scouts Canada, Syracuse University – no doubt these organizations are full of good people, but how come they can’t do the right things?

Here is my little piece of advice – if you have even the tiniest niggling feeling that something isn’t right, trust that feeling. Be alert, ask questions, share your concerns with someone. If you suspect, even just a little bit, that a child is being harmed, do something. All the laws, policies, standards, protocols, rules, screening systems and police checks in the world don’t protect vulnerable people from harm. The only thing that protects those people who cannot protect themselves, is other people. Don’t be a bystander. Stand tall on your feet. Reach out to a child.

rmc@sportlaw.ca

In recent months I have been following a blog on risk management written by Melanie Lockwood-Herman. She is the Executive Director of an American non-profit dedicated to helping non-profit organizations manage risks. Funded primarily by insurance companies (don’t hold this against them!), the Non Profit Risk Management Centre provides lots of great resources, many of which are applicable to the sport community in Canada.

Recently, Melanie has published a book titled Ready or Not: A Risk Management Guide for Nonprofit Executives. It is a refreshing read for the reason that it espouses some of the same attitudes about risk that I do: namely, that there is an upside to risk, that as leaders we should take more risks (not fewer), and that risk management can be understood using more practical, accessible and jargon-free approaches.

Previously, I have written about the 7 Sins of Board Dysfunction and have used these as educational tools to highlight the corresponding virtues that help organizations govern more effectively. Melanie also uses this biblical metaphor by discussing the Seven Sins and Seven Virtues of risk management in this book. I thought I would share them.

Seven Sins of Risk Management

• Stepping over a banana peel
• Assuming others have your nonprofit’s interests at heart
• Operating as if insurance will take care of your risks
• Signing a contract you have not read
• Acting as if staff and volunteers will do no harm
• Worrying without taking action
• Not getting started

Seven Virtues of Risk Management

• Being clear and concise
• Asking and inviting tough questions
• Trying the simple approach first
• Putting people first
• Learning from experience
• Anticipating the future
• Seeking help

While in this mindset of trying to simplify what are very complex things, I thought I would share the acronym that I have developed and that I find helpful. A risk registry might be 20 pages long or more, and a risk assessment might take you and your staff days to complete, but at the end of the day risk management might just mean going about your daily job differently. Every day I encourage you to:

          R – reflect on your vision, mission, values and activities

          I – integrate risk thinking into all your decisions

          S – scan continually for new or evolving risks

          K – keep it simple and understandable

Becoming a leader that others look up to is a goal worth pursuing. Authentic leadership is a form of leadership that transforms people, organizations, communities, and the world. Think about the great leaders you admire most. Chances are, these leaders maintain key positions within organizations because they are trusted, respected, and admired. They communicate clearly and authentically, relying on high ethical standards to convey their messages. They walk the talk with respect to their values and they care about the well-being of others. In so doing, they make it safe to take risks and to consider creative solutions to complex problems. These leaders are themselves high performers and they are considered the ‘go to’ people in their organization. Here are some tips to help nurture others so they can become high performers too.

Authentic leaders:

• Know their personal values: Put simply, you need to know what matters to you and why. This requires a high degree of self-awareness – meaning that one must be aware of and trust in one’s own personal characteristics, values, motives, feelings, and beliefs.
• Communicate authentically: This means being true to your word and walking the talk. By communicating authentically, leaders can foster a caring and nurturing environment that creates a more humanistic approach to managing in today’s chaotic world.
• Encourage creativity: Complex problems require creative solutions. Authentic leaders provide a safe environment for staff and volunteers to think critically about options, determine possible solutions, and take informed risks. This type of environment is a hallmark of authentic leadership.
• Embrace diversity: Research suggests that diversity of perspective enhances decision-making by ensuring that the dialogue is informed while taking into account multiple perspectives. Authentic leaders deliberately search out diverse perspectives from others as they know it will provide their organization with a competitive advantage over those organizations that don’t.
• Mentor staff and key volunteers: Authentic leaders create pathways for success that enable staff and volunteers to learn, grow, and take on new challenges. They provide them with a nurturing environment to set goals and to determine longer term objectives.

The Benefit: Being deliberate about the leadership style you want to embody is a critical skill for any woman to have. While the literature has many leadership books that you can explore to learn more about the leadership style that suits your personality, strengths, and aspirations, you may wish to chat with Dina if you want to exchange ideas on how to design your personal leadership plan.

Originally published on the CAAWS’ Women and Leadership Network.

Supported by True Sport and coordinated by the Sport Law & Strategy Group, the Risk Management Workshops (RMWs) are designed to provide NSOs with the ability to manage the risks they face on a daily basis. According to the study, the workshops have provided NSO leaders with valuable knowledge and education – and contributed to these individuals’ ongoing learning. With a renewed focus on achieving podium performance and implementing Long Term Athlete Development (LTAD) at all levels, it is imperative for Canadian sport leaders to adjust and evolve in order to continue to serve the needs of athletes, coaches, and organizations. An early conclusion to this research is that committing to long-term professional development can help NSOs realize capacity gains and better prepare themselves to effectively administer LTAD.