The state of sports
References to sports routinely show up in our discussions about work. We work “as a team” and look for co-workers who are “team players.” We “win” in markets and we “get projects across the finish line.” The comparisons can be both literal and figurative as we see business as sport, as well as sports as a business.
So, what does it mean when the Future of Sport in Canada Commission concluded that, “The Canadian sport system is riddled with abuse and in urgent need of a fundamental overhaul”? Commission head, Justice Lise Maisonneuve, added, “Maltreatment in sport is widespread and is ongoing in all jurisdictions and all levels of sport.”
There are very basic constructs that enable competition, be it in sport or business: What constitutes “a win,” and what rules do we follow?
“Winning” can seem very simple, even though judged sports may be more opaque. Scoreboards and finish-line photos should be clear, but when you add in “calls” and other infractions, those results lose objectivity (and maybe credibility). There is always more to it than the end result. Much of the commentary about the Olympic hockey finals illustrated this: “We played best on best and didn’t get the breaks we needed…” (Men’s) to “We made them work for it despite being short our captain!” (Women’). There was much North American consensus that hockey won.
At the highest levels of competition, any articulation of positives that are not a “win” can sound like rationalizing or damage control, but for all other levels of sport (and of non-sport) activities, it is helpful to discuss what we are looking for beyond the final result.
Exploring “what constitutes a win for us?” teases out expectations for all involved. What IS realistic? Should we be the favourite? Are we the underdog? What else are we trying to accomplish? We have an opportunity to set up the game (and are trusted not to rig the system in our favour such that there is no chance of losing).
So, what IS a win for:
A league that wants to lower barriers to participation? (e.g. X% from non-traditional entry streams?)
A skill development league? (e.g. number of players sent to or returned to top-level play?)
A national track and field program? (e.g. number of athletes who remain world-class across multiple games?)
The discussion of Rules connects “how we play” and “how we did.” Ms. Maisonneuve shares that, “Too often, winning, reputation, and funding are prioritized over safety and dignity,” which illustrates the interplay. Yes, we want to win, but we attend to optics (reputation) and don’t want to mistreat athletes by sacrificing their dignity or their safety. This means that, even if they help to win, we won’t, for example, subject our athletes to risky substances or routines, nor will we engage in demeaning ways of motivating them or “toughen them up.”
If a rule is aligned with our idea of “winning” (or not losing), we follow it willingly. Professional hockey players do not want to inflict career ending injuries on their opponents, so any instance of “dangerous hits” is unintentional, i.e. we are not trying to find a way to make an injury-inducing hit LOOK less dangerous (Right?).
When people have different ideas and assumptions about winning, imposing and enforcing rules can look like a game of cat and mouse. If coaching teams don’t care about the long-term safety of the athletes, they will encourage harmful-but-effective substance, and if those substances are banned, they will work to avoid detection. No one will say they want to “win at all costs,” but sometimes the actual costs of the behaviour are allowed to be ignored.
Some rules are written others are not. In noting that, “Chronic underfunding makes sport less safe,” Ms. Maisonneuve went on to say, “Organizations are being asked to do much more, like governance, safe sport, equity, compliance, with fewer resources. And the fear of losing funding feeds directly into the culture of silence.”
Unwritten rule = show us medals or lose your funding. Does this inadvertently cause the “win at all costs” approach that deemphasizes adhering to governance, safety, equity, etc.?
Maybe there is another unwritten rule: Keep quiet about all the stuff we are supposed to be doing. We are focussed on winning here.
For the athletes, as well as for those involved in all aspects of the leagues, associations and organizations that touch sports, I sincerely hope that this report brings much needed improvements. If there is anywhere where we can foster a culture of “winning the right way,” it should be in the realm of sports.