Passing the Torch
Modernizing Olympic, Paralympic,& Grassroots Sports in America
2024
THE FINAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE STATE OF U.S. OLYMPICS & PARALYMPICS

Co-Chairs
Commissioners

Commission Staff

Dionne Koller
Han Xiao

Patty Cisneros Prevo
Robert CohenJohn Dane III*
Mitch Daniels*
Benita Fitzgerald Mosley
Nancy Hogshead
William Hybl*
Karin Korb
Edwin Moses
Rob Mullens
Brittney Reese
Joseph E. Schmitz
Melissa Stockwell
Jordyn Wieber

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Kevin Brown
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS

Andrea Ramos
Justin Vollmer
DIRECTORS OF POLICY & RESEARCH

Hannah Bodily
Adam Osborne
Logan Ridgeway
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Jenna Hudak
CHIEF WRITER

Adam Weissmann*John Dane III and Mitch Daniels resigned from the Commission prior to April 2023 due to scheduling conflicts
and took no part in its work. William Hybl stepped down in January 2024 due to family reasons and, up to thattime, participated fully in the Commission’s work.

Acknowledgements

We were honored that Congress entrusted us andour fellow commissioners with conducting thisstudy, and we thank the Senators and Representatives who have engaged with us since the beginning to ensure a smooth, bipartisan process.
Though many both from within and outside theU.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement described our mandate as a Sisyphean task, we believe
we were able to fix the stone at the summit as a result of extraordinary efforts by all involved.
Our commissioners brought their expertise andmany years of experience with the movement, itsinstitutions, and its practices. They also brought
a commitment to conducting a thorough, fair, andconsensus-based study. We thank them for theirpartnership in this undertaking.
The staff supporting us performed their jobs tremendously, ensuring a thorough and comprehensive study even with limited time and resources.
We are grateful for their tireless efforts, to which
this report testifies. Most of all, though, we wish to
thank the athletes of Team USA who inspired us
throughout our process. Their dedication, their resolve, and their patriotism formed the beacon thatguided us as we sought answers and focused on
developing recommendations that, we hope, willkeep this movement worthy of the contributions
they make to it.

Dionne Koller & Han Xiao
CO-CHAIRS

Table of Contents
Skip Table of Contents

6 | SUMMARY OF FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
6 | Introduction

13 | The Commission’s Recommendations

7 | A Once-in-a-Generation Opportunity: The
Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics andParalympics

18 | Conclusion

9 | The Commission’s Findings

20 | HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
20 | The Olympic & Paralympic Movement in
America and “Amateur” Sports
24 | The 1976-77 President’s Commission and the

42 | The Ropes & Gray LLP Report44 | Congressional Investigations, Hearings, andReports from 2017-2020

Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act
47 | Athletes’ Financial Burdens
30 | Developments in the U.S. Olympic andParalympic Movement from 1978-1998

49 | The Growth of U.S. Paralympics and Ongoing
Challenges with Accessibility

32 | Creation of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency
34 | Changes to the USOPC Board of Directors,
2003-202035 | Olympic and Paralympic Licensing andBroadcasts

51 | Persistent Gaps in Equitable Access toParticipation at All Levels
54 | The American Development Model for
Coaching
55 | The Borders Commission

37 | U.S. Bids to Host the Olympic & Paralympic
Games37 | Sexual-Abuse Crises and Creation of the U.S.
Center for SafeSport

56 | The COVID-19 Pandemic’s Impact on the U.S.
Olympic and Paralympic Movement
58 | The Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, andAmateur Athletes Act and Establishment of thisCommission

61 | FINDINGS
61 | Introduction & Methodology

64 | Findings

120 | RECOMMENDATIONS
120 | Introduction
120 | Recommendation #1: Federal Support for
Youth & Grassroots Sports
123 | Recommendation #2: Independence for
SafeSport
125 | Recommendation #3: Reforms to SafeSport
Practices
129 | Recommendation #4: Addressing
Amateurism & Athletes’ Rights
131 | Recommendation #5: Reforms to USOPC
Governance Processes

136 | Recommendation #7: Public Oversight ofMovement Institutions
139 | Recommendation #8: Ensuring Access andEquality for Paralympians
142 | Recommendation #9: Increasing Equitable
Access Across the Movement
144 | Recommendation #10: A New Model for U.S.
Olympic and Paralympic Hosting Bids
146 | Recommendation #11: Improving Coaching at All
Levels149 | Recommendation #12: Identifying New Sourcesof Funding to Support Athletes

134 | Recommendation #6: An Independent TeamUSA Athletes’ Commission

152 | APPENDIX I
152 | Transcript of the Commission’s Public
Hearing, September 6, 2023

244 | APPENDIX II
244 | Tables of Olympic & Paralympic Medal
Counts226 | Written Testimony Submitted Into the
Record252 | APPENDIX III

253 | Document-Request Letter

256 | ACCESSIBILITY INDEX

254 | INDEX OF STATUTORILYMANDATED AREAS OF STUDY6

Summary of Findings & Recommendations
INTRODUCTION
Sports hold a unique place in American life. We
look to our athletic champions as heroes, men andwomen who inspire us to set ambitious goals andseek to reach them, who prove that seemingly unattainable heights can indeed be surmounted. The
excitement of competition produces moments thatecho through history and help define eras. The excellence observed in sports among athletes, coaches,and supporters sets a mirror in which we ourselves
strive to reflect greatness in our varied pursuits.
In so many ways, we expect our athletes to model
the traits we hold in highest regard: determination,
fairness, civility, ambition, teamwork, and faith inourselves and our fellow Americans.

While other sports contexts in our country, such ascollegiate or professional sports, are of high public
interest, it is Olympic and Paralympic sports thatare uniquely a public value.

For much of its history, the U.S. Olympic andParalympic movement has been associated morewith its pinnacle than its base. While millions ofAmericans participate in the movement each year
through youth and grassroots sports in the communities where they live, there are hardly any Americans who do not know about or take an interest in
the quadrennial Olympic and Paralympic games.
Those games have, at times, been a focus of American diplomacy, particularly during the Cold War
The benefits of greater participation in sports by and again now with the rise of new global competAmericans of all ages are also clear. Lower health- itors. The current system for governing the movecare costs, higher self-confidence among young ment in the United States emerged in large part aspeople, greater social cohesion, increased defense a result of public attention to what was believed toreadiness, and stronger communities are among be poor U.S. Olympic showings against Soviet-bloc
sports’ many positive impacts. Moreover, when nations. At the same time, athlete-eligibility andAmericans from different backgrounds come to- jurisdictional disputes among movement organizagether on the field of play or join to cheer on Team tions required outside intervention to resolve.
USA in international competition, we come closer
to embodying our Founders’ vision as set forth in In 1976, in an effort to address those challenges, Presthe motto they chose for us: e pluribus unum.
ident Gerald Ford launched an independent commission to recommend systemic changes to moveSince the nineteenth century, the global Olympic ment governance. The following year, his President’s
movement—and, later, the Paralympic movement— Commission on Olympic Sports asked Congress to
has provided a standard framework for every per- step in and reconceptualize the entire landscape ofson to benefit from sports. With opportunities for Olympic and Paralympic sports in our country. Conchildren to learn play and teamwork and for adults gress’s legislation in response to that commission’s
to strive for personal achievement, this movement recommendations, today known as the Ted Stevens
has aimed to create a universal ideal of equitable Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, established theaccess to sports that are safe and fair. Each nation system that has been in place ever since.
has established its own system to ensure that thisideal is achieved.
Today, this movement is again in dire need of systemic change. In recent years, it has faced a reckSince 1978, the governance of this movement in the oning over widespread abuse of athletes and asUnited States has been organized by Congress on sociated cover-ups, over disparities in access andbehalf of the American people. Lawmakers from accessibility, and over deficiencies in accountability
both parties have recognized for more than four and due process. It is again time to re-envision how
decades that the success of the U.S. Olympic and Olympic and Paralympic sports ought to be orgaParalympic movement must be a national priority. nized and governed so we can protect and empow-

7

er athletes to reach for their best and, in so doing, ceeded in addressing fundamental problems. The
help demonstrate America’s best.
Act was amended in 1998 to integrate Paralympic
sports; still today many Paralympians face perThe Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act sistent inequities and continue to seek their proper
broke new ground in striking a uniquely American place at the table. Congress amended it further inbalance between the need for public oversight of 2017 to address athlete safety with the establishthe Olympic and Paralympic movement as well as ment of the U.S. Center for SafeSport (SafeSport);
our tradition of decentralized, private governance many athletes continue to hold little trust in theof sports. Nearly half a century later, however, it is system meant to protect them against abuse—andclear to stakeholders across the movement—and to point to SafeSport’s many shortcomings as deterAmericans who participate in movement sports at rents to reporting misconduct. Three years later,
every level—that the system has fallen out of bal- Congress amended the Act once more to provide
ance. Athletes, including minors, have been physi- greater representation to athletes in the movecally and emotionally abused. Some of the most tal- ment’s governance; however, athletes remain withented competitors under our flag go to sleep at night out sufficient ability to better their conditions andunder the roof of a car or without sufficient food ensure the support they need.
or adequate health insurance. Parents have beenshortchanged by a pay-to-play system that leaves Recognizing the ineffectiveness and irrationality of
too many children without access to the health and making reforms one crisis at a time, Congress essocial benefits of youth sports in their communi- tablished the bipartisan Commission on the State ofties. Leaders tasked with overseeing movement U.S. Olympics and Paralympics in 2020 with the goal
sports, faced with near-impossible choices about of addressing systemic challenges. Much like thefunding, have instituted policies that prioritize President’s Commission on Olympic Sports in 1976revenues over the development of their sports and 77, our Commission is fully independent. Forty-six
the well-being of those they are meant to serve. As years ago, that first independent commission offered
Congress previously found, the current system pro- a vision for a better-organized movement, and themotes near-term incentives for medals and mon- result was the legislative foundation that supported
ey over the long-term success of our sports-talent the movement through years of spectacular growth,
pipeline and equitable access to sports by millions change, and unprecedented athletic success. Ourof Americans’ where they live. In nearly every case, Commission was tasked with studying the current
the losers have been the athletes—and the millions system, evaluating the effectiveness of its governof Americans who would be athletes—and the win- ing institutions, and setting out a new vision for theners those Congress charged with the responsibility movement to succeed in the twenty-first century
of protecting and empowering them.
and beyond. It is a once-in-a-generation chance torevisit the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports
A ONCE-IN-A-GENERATION
Act and other foundations of the U.S. Olympic and
OPPORTUNITY: THE COMMISSION ON THE Paralympic movement and ensure they reflect not
STATE OF U.S. OLYMPICS & PARALYMPICS only our nation’s values but also its common goals ofbetter safety, broader access, stronger accountability,
Since enactment of the Ted Stevens Olympic and and higher performance.
Amateur Sports Act, Congress has tried to implement piecemeal reforms, typically in the aftermath After being provided with operational funding byof a crisis. Much like athletic tape applied to the Congress in 2022 and hiring staff in early 2023, ourskin over broken bones, this approach has not suc- Commission undertook a comprehensive months-

8Summary of Findings & Recommendations

long study of the movement, its governance, and its
current challenges. We collected tens of thousandsof documents; we conducted surveys; we convened
focus groups; we spoke with hundreds of participants and stakeholders individually; and we held apublic hearing soliciting testimony from movement
leaders, athletes, and subject-matter experts. There
was no part of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
movement we did not investigate or evaluate asthoroughly as we were able.

United States. In conducting our study, the Commission hewed closely to these mandated areas,
and our report thoroughly addresses all ten. However, our Commission found that it was impossible
to review these ten areas and meet Congress’s request for findings and recommendations without
also looking at the movement’s governance holistically through a broader exploration of conditions
and challenges that play a role in the movement
and help connect the ten specific areas of study to
one another. Congress anticipated this challenge,
While we strove to be as comprehensive in our data not including any language in the statute specificalcollection as possible, the Commission made some ly limiting our study to these ten areas only, and it
requests for documents from the U.S. Olympic directed us to “submit to Congress a report on theand Paralympic Committee (USOPC), SafeSport, results of the study …including a detailed statement
and governing bodies that were not fulfilled. These of findings, conclusions, recommendations, and sugorganizations’ decision not to furnish us with re- gested policy changes.”1
In short, no study of thiskind has been undertaken
since 1977. Indeed, withthe movement’s growthand development over the
past four decades, it is noquested financial documents detailing spending, as exaggeration to say that our Commission’s study
well as those covering certain safety policies, reflect was unprecedented in scope and scale. The findingsa lack of transparency built into the structure of the and recommendations below reflect our best effort
current system, one that hinders the movement’s at providing Congress and movement leaders withaccountability to Congress. In this report’s Find- a full understanding of the complex challenges thatings section, we discuss in further detail some of need to be addressed as well as a solid frameworkthese challenges with transparency, accountability, for how best to do so.
and public oversight that we believe should be addressed. While, in many instances, internal docu- From the ineffectiveness of piecemeal reforms toments were not provided directly to our Commis- a troubling lack of transparency and accountabilision, we were nevertheless able to fill in many of the ty across institutions, from an opaque and lagging
gaps using information gleaned from other trust- host-city bid process to an absence of effective representation for athletes, the findings from our study
worthy and knowledgeable sources.
together portray a movement at an inflection point.
In the 2020 legislation establishing our Commis- Too many athletes feel unsafe and distrust the orsion, Congress specifically asked us to include ganizations meant to protect them. A broken inin our study ten areas of inquiry. They included, centive structure has shortchanged the millions ofamong others: a review of recent reforms; an as- youth and grassroots participants at the entrance
sessment of financial practices by USOPC and the to our Olympic and Paralympic pipeline. Not all ofgoverning bodies; an analysis of participation in the our findings are negative; we identified one movemovement by women, minorities, and Americans ment institution that has been a model of success,with disabilities; and an evaluation of efforts to we saw some limited improvements in diversity andbring future Olympic and Paralympic games to the access within the movement, we found the Nation-...With the movement’s growth and development over the
past four decades, it is no exaggeration to say that our
Commission’s study was unprecedented in scope and scale.

1

Pub. L. 116-189.

Summary of Findings & Recommendations

al Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) system
to be highly effective in developing high-performance athletes in many sports, and we encountered USOPC policies that are delivering tangible
benefits to athletes. However, the overall picture is
one of challenge coupled with a tremendous opportunity to set a course away from scandal and crisis
toward stability and success.
It would be easy to reduce our findings to a simple
tale of institutional failure. The reality, however, is
far more complex. Even though USOPC, governing
bodies, and SafeSport have all engaged in actions
that are not always consistent with the public interest and the well-being of athletes, they are notsolely responsible. In the Commission’s view, theproblems with the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
movement today result from reliance on a system designed in the 1970s that cannot meet the
movement’s present challenges. The landscape formovement sports has changed, and while Congresshas tried to make piecemeal reforms through theframework of that decades-old system, it is theframework itself that must be addressed. For manyorganizations operating within that framework,over time a monopoly-like power over movement
sports has led to noncompetitive practices anddevelopment of an incentive-structure that shortchanges athletes and jeopardizes safety—all without sufficient public oversight.

9

oversight of these quasi-governmental institutions
has created an environment in which, even withthe best of intentions, many movement institutions have been unable or unwilling fully to protect, serve, and support the athletes who fuel thisenterprise. Just as it did during the Cold War, whenlawmakers enacted the Ted Stevens Olympic andAmateur Sports Act to restructure a broken system,
once again Congress must set a new framework.
States and private stakeholders also have importantroles to play in this effort if we are to design a new
blueprint for U.S. Olympic and Paralympic sports.
THE COMMISSION’S FINDINGSFirst and foremost, we looked carefully at the issue
of athlete safety. As we engaged in our study, it became clearer with each new piece of evidence that
SafeSport has lost the trust of many athletes. This
has resulted not only from a case backlog that is
growing and not shrinking, from the length of timerequired to close cases, and from SafeSport’s policy of closing many cases administratively; it canalso be attributed to the center’s lack of independent funding, which has caused the appearance of aconflict of interest. When we examined SafeSport’s
funding structure in greater detail, what we found
was deeply concerning. In amassing its $20 million funding requirement for the center, USOPC
charges governing bodies a high-use contribution
fee for each case referred. This practice incentivizes
governing bodies to deter participants from coming forward if they have been abused or encountered other forms of misconduct. In observing thestructural weaknesses of the funding mechanism
Congress established for SafeSport, the Commission drew a sharp contrast with the success of the
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), which receives public funding and has very high rates ofathlete trust and approval. In our view, USADA’s
public-private funding model has given it the kindof independence and accountability that SafeSport
does not have but sorely requires.

When Congress handed USOPC and the governing bodies a mandate to “coordinate and develop”2
movement sports at every level without sufficientfunding to carry it out, officials chose to focus nearly all their attention and resources on the athletes
whose marketing would lead to more revenue generation: the Olympians and—sadly, to a lesser extent—Paralympians most likely to win medals. By
establishing SafeSport as, effectively, an appendage
of USOPC and the governing bodies—by virtue of
its funding mechanism—Congress made it difficult
for many athletes to trust SafeSport. This also contributed to the development of a funding-contribution formula that deters governing bodies from We also found that SafeSport does not adequatehelping to root out abuse within their sports. The ly employ trauma-informed practices. Victims areabsence of an ongoing, robust process of public hesitant to file claims because they believe that
2

Pub. L. 95-606.

10

Summary of Findings & Recommendations

SafeSport’s process will re-traumatize them. Thereis also a widespread perception that the system isstacked against victims, perhaps as a result of thevery high rate of SafeSport decisions being overturned through arbitration in favor of respondents.
It is also often unclear to athletes how to reportabuse and other violations of the SafeSport Code,likely because of varying requirements across thedifferent governing bodies about who constitutes a“covered individual” and to whom athletes should
go first to file a claim. Moreover, we encounteredsubstantial misunderstandings among movement
participants about their rights with regard to SafeSport’s processes, including the widespread misperception that evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt”
was required for the center’s investigators to prove aclaim, as opposed to a “preponderance of evidence,”
which is the standard in these cases. The Commission also assessed SafeSport’s proactive training
and educational programs and requirements to be
insufficiently effective to meet the center’s goals,
and its event-auditing procedures currently limit
proper oversight of governing bodies’ safety practices. While SafeSport’s Centralized Disciplinary
Database has the potential to be a valuable tool forkeeping abusers out of movement sports, several
challenges have kept it from being as effective as
possible. Among these are a lack of awareness ofthe database among both movement participants
and the public, too infrequent updates to the listof those banned or sanctioned, and the fact that
not all organizations now delivering youth-sport
services in this country fall under SafeSport’s jurisdiction—including even some locally affiliated withgoverning bodies. The database is also hampered
because it only covers movement sports and does
not receive information furnished by NCAA member institutions about individuals disciplined for
misconduct in collegiate sports.

intended it to be. In our public hearing, SafeSportCEO Ju’Riese Colón made it clear that the center isopen to change and is working to correct its shortcomings. With proper reforms and support from
Congress, we do not see any reason why SafeSport
cannot be successful in the future and inspire athletes’ trust.
Addressing safety, however, goes beyond making
changes to SafeSport. It is deeply enmeshed withan even broader challenge to the movement that
affects athletes’ well-being and the long-term success of our Olympic and Paralympic pipeline. This
challenge is also the source of our nation’s fractured
youth- and grassroots-sports landscape, which has
moved millions of young athletes outside of SafeSport’s jurisdiction. It is responsible, in large part, forcreating an environment in which so many of ourhigh-performance athletes feel vulnerable and disempowered. This challenge has also made it harder
to close gaps in access that has prevented so many
Americans from enjoying the lifelong benefits ofparticipating in sports where they live. Many of
the systemic failings observed across movement
sports can be traced directly to USOPC’s inability
to carry out its dual mandate under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. That unfunded mandate, we found, is unworkable, and it
should surprise no one that USOPC leaders havefocused for decades on the part of its mandate thatwould generate the greatest success in Olympic andParalympic performance—and not the broadest access to youth and grassroots sports in our communities. Ultimately, this is Congress’s responsibility,
having set for USOPC a purpose at which it could
not possibly succeed with the insufficient resources
it was allocated.

Congress has also failed to provide a strong-enoughsystem of public oversight of USOPC, the governing
While the Commission heard from many who bodies, and other movement institutions, including
wished to see SafeSport disbanded entirely and SafeSport. This was apparent to us when we madereplaced with a new entity, overall we found that repeated requests for detailed documentation onmost movement participants do not wish to start their finances and safety practices, many of which
over and lose progress already made since 2017. were not provided. While some movement instituInstead, there is a broad desire to see SafeSport tions responded to our Commission’s requests forstrengthened and made into the effective safety information in good faith, others were hostile towatchdog that policymakers and movement leaders our process, even when informed of our statutory

Summary of Findings & Recommendations

charge. That response evidenced the fact that public oversight and transparency are not a widespread,
regular part of the movement’s operating culture.
As a result, when we asked USOPC to detail for us
how much it invests each year in support of its mandate to “coordinate and develop” movement sports
in our country at the grassroots level, we received

11

in movement sports. We also found that it is having damaging effects on the development of ourhigh-performance talent pipeline, shortchanging
our ability to keep up with global competitors at the
Olympic and Paralympic games and other closely
followed international competitions.

We also observed how spending
by USOPC on executive compen...The net cost to athletes, on average, to participate
sation, in sharp contrast to what it
at the highest levels of our Olympic and Paralympic
invests in our nation’s high-persports pipeline and pursue international competition isformance athletes and theirwell-being, continues to generate$12,000 a year. This means that our top athletes must
athlete distrust and disaffection.
pay for the privilege of competing under our flag.
While the data we collected andthe information gleaned fromvery little in terms of financial documentation. We both internal sources and publicly available finanwere forced to fill in gaps using public information cial documents shows USOPC and governing-body
as well as knowledge gleaned from interviews with executives earning generous salaries and bonuses, athose informed about USOPC’s practices. Never- substantial number of athletes are struggling to maketheless, the Commission was able to conduct a fi- ends meet. We understand that competition for talnancial analysis of USOPC’s spending on youth and ent is real and that movement institutions must be
grassroots development, which outlines just how able to attract and retain experienced individuals by
scant such investment has been. Indeed, not much offering competitive compensation. The stark differhas changed since the 1995 revelation that USOPC ence, however, between incomes for executives andhad been investing less than 1% of its resources in support for athletes was alarming. The Commission
youth and grassroots development. It is no surprise found that the net cost to athletes, on average, tothat many private youth- and grassroots-sports or- participate at the highest levels of our Olympic andganizations—both nonprofit and for-profit—that Paralympic sports pipeline and pursue international
are unaccountable and outside of SafeSport’s juris- competition is $12,000 a year. This means that our
diction have emerged since that time to fill the vac- top athletes must pay for the privilege of competinguum left by unsupported governing bodies strug- under our flag. Even during the pandemic, USOPC
gling to keep up with demand.
and many governing bodies found creative ways tofund executive compensation while cutting supAt the same time, we found that governing bodies port for athletes, many of whom were left to rely ontake a widely varied approach in how they provide crowdsourcing and other methods of supplementing
services to youth and grassroots participants. Dif- their already-low incomes. For those in para sports,
ferences in organization and board structure among financial challenges have been even tougher, due tothe governing bodies have also had an impact on the the higher cost to participate in the form of specialdelivery of services and effective communications ized equipment and training. Most athletes who enat the youth and grassroots level. The Commission gaged with our study reported insufficient financial
also looked closely at national data on youth-sports support from USOPC or their governing bodies, andparticipation, which has been on a dangerous down- we heard accounts of how this negatively impacts
ward trend, as well as the impact of the COVID-19 athletes’ performance.
pandemic and the further widening of gaps in access.
Not only did we identify negative consequences of Moreover, unique among nations, our system also
USOPC’s inability to carry out its dual mandate to relies on colleges and universities for much of our
the millions of youth and grassroots participants Olympic and Paralympic training pipeline, draw-

12

Summary of Findings & Recommendations

ing heavily on the funding generated by certain governing bodies are not compliant with the onehigh-interest collegiate sports to sustain programs third rule for athlete board representation, withacross other disciplines through scholarships and little consequence and no clear method of enforcesupport for training. This has placed a substantial ment. The USOPC Athlete Ombuds, while well inburden on higher education while creating confu- tended, has not been able to serve as an effective
sion for athletes about changing rights and respon- advocate for athletes and is hampered both by its
sibilities as they move frequently between these two inability to provide legal advice to those involved
sports contexts at the top levels of our Olympic and in disputes as well as being seen by athletes as an
Paralympic pipeline. The Commission found that, arm of the USOPC administration. While the Team
while USOPC’s health-insurance program for top USA Athletes’ Commission is doing the best it canathletes has filled a critical need for athletes and is to carry out its mission, it has been unable to do so
also helping to make it easier for women, in par- in full because it remains financially dependent on
ticular, to participate at the highest levels of com- USOPC. As a result, the one entity meant to be bepetition, challenges remain with gaps in coverage holden only to athletes and to advocate before othand in understanding eligibility requirements. We er movement institutions’ leaders on their behalf
also assessed athletes’ ability to secure sponsorship is beholden to those on the other side of the table.
funding under current USOPC and governing-body While many movement stakeholders have aspired
rules, and it is clear that the few who are able to ac- to call the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movementcess these opportunities do not earn much and of- “athlete-centered,” under current conditions it canten find they are asked to sign away rights or commit not truly be described as such.
to time-consuming events that can interfere with
their training schedules. When high-performance Congress also asked our Commission to look speathletes move among different sports contexts they cifically at whether efforts to improve representaencounter different rules for dispute resolution as tion of women and girls, racial and ethnic minoriwell. Unsurprisingly, we found a widespread lack ties, and Americans with disabilities within theof knowledge even among athletes participating in movement have been successful. Unfortunately,
movement sports about how the U.S. Olympic and limits in the collection and dissemination of data by
Paralympic movement is organized and governed. USOPC and governing bodies made it difficult for
the Commission to draw detailed conclusions with
To address many of these challenges facing ath- regard to trends in diversity, representation, andletes, Congress made three important reforms access. What we did find, however, is that muchsince 1978 with the intention of strengthening work remains unfinished in this area. While sometheir representation within the movement’s deci- limited progress has been achieved across the threesion-making processes. First, it raised the statuto- above categories, the movement’s leadership is still
ry minimum requirement for athlete voting repre- not fully representative of those who participate insentation on USOPC and governing-body boards it, and the diversity of the broad base of the pyrafrom one fifth to one third. It also codified into mid has yet to be reflected in its pinnacle among
law the position and role of USOPC’s Athlete Om- our national teams.
buds. Further, Congress provided authorization to
the Athletes’ Advisory Council (later renamed the In this report, we outline several positive steps that
Team USA Athletes’ Commission), which had been have been taken by USOPC and governing bodies
an advisory committee within USOPC, as the offi- that are helping to make movement sports morecial representative of athletes within the movement. equitably accessible. During the pandemic, ournation saw improvement in some metrics when
However, according to feedback from athletes and it comes to racial and ethnic minorities accessing
other participants, each of these three actions has youth sports. However, this remains an uphill effort,
failed to deliver progress on the goal of fully em- and persistent gaps continue to shortchange thepowering athletes within the movement. Several talent pipeline while keeping many young Ameri-Summary of Findings & Recommendationscans from enjoying the multitude of benefits thatcome from sports participation. The largest andmost pervasive barrier to access has been financial,which has exacerbated inequalities among urban,
suburban, and rural Americans trying to accessmovement sports—in addition to inequalities for
racial and ethnic minority communities that continue to experience national gaps in income inequality.
In particular, we are concerned by our finding thatvery little funding has been made available—from
USOPC, from governing bodies, from state andlocal governments, and from private sources—tosupport the development of para sports on the
youth and grassroots level, elevating the financial
hurdles that already exist movement-wide. The
negative impact of this situation on our long-term
Paralympic pipeline, if left unaddressed, could be
far-reaching.

13

fully inclusive of Paralympians in the early stagesof its work, an oversight we hope has since beencorrected. We also found opportunity for USOPC
and U.S. bid leaders to work with counterparts in
the international movement to make the IOC andthe IPC truly equal partners in planning, selecting,and facilitating the games.

Having been asked by Congress to evaluate the efficacy of recent reforms, the Commission found thatpiecemeal reforms implemented in the aftermathof scandal and crisis have not been the best method of achieving policymakers’ aims. Only systemicchanges can bring about the desired outcomes ofmaking the movement “athlete-centered,” addressing the conditions that have made athletes vulnerable to abuse, and ensuring proper transparency
and accountability of the movement’s quasi-governmental institutions. It is clear that the recent reAnother area where we found both challenges and forms undertaken in 2017 and 2020 have not been
opportunities for Paralympic sports was in our far-enough reaching to rebuild trust in movement
analysis of the U.S. hosting bid process. Congress institutions among those who participate. Indeed,
included among its ten specified areas of study an the Commission found that even many high-perevaluation of the current process by which U.S. formance athletes are not aware of these piecemeal
bids to host the Olympic and Paralympic games reforms, and the general public still believes Conare selected by USOPC to be submitted to the In- gress has not done enough to address challenges
ternational Olympic Committee (IOC) and the In- that have plagued the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
ternational Paralympic Committee (IPC). In doing movement for years. Perhaps the most importantso, we found that USOPC’s process could be more finding from our study is that the need for systemtransparent. Our Commission also identified global ic reform of the governance and oversight of thistrends in bid design that call for more creative and movement by Congress is both extensive and urinnovative plans, an area where the United States gent.
could demonstrate greater leadership around how
games are hosted. Currently, U.S. hosts are forced to THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS
carry the full cost of the games on their own, without support from the federal government, a reality The findings from our Commission’s study have ledthat deters potential bids that could help showcase us to twelve major recommendations for next steps
America’s sports talent and present the best of our by Congress—as well as by the states, USOPC, govcountry to the world. Unfortunately, the Commis- erning bodies, SafeSport, and movement stakeholdsion also found that bid planners continue to pri- ers. Within each major recommendation, the Comoritize the Olympics over the Paralympics in a way mission has identified—and laid out below in detailthat sends the wrong message about how much our in the Recommendations section of this report—
nation values the achievements and contributions specific actions that we view as essential to settingof Americans with disabilities, all while missing an the movement on track for success in this new era ofopportunity to tap further into the commercial po- sports. This framework, in our view, ought to guidetential of the Paralympic movement in this country Congress and the movement forward as we seek athat could be harnessed to support its growth. Even better, safer, more equitably accessible, and more
the LA28 Organizing Committee struggled to be accountable system for Olympic and Paralympic

14Summary of Findings & Recommendations

sports in our country. The Commission’s twelve major recommendations are as follows:
Recommendation #1: Congress should allow
USOPC to focus on high-performance athletes
and create a new federal office to coordinate anddevelop youth and grassroots sports.
It is time to end USOPC’s dual mandate to support
high-performance athletes as well as “coordinate
and develop” youth and grassroots sports in ourcountry. Instead, USOPC should be allowed, at longlast and after repeated requests, to focus solely on
the former. Congress should move responsibility for
coordinating and developing youth and grassroots
sports to a dedicated Office of Sports and Fitness
under the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). Furthermore, it should providethat office with sufficient funding to carry out its
mission using competitive-grant programs for stateand local governments, the governing bodies, andcommunity-based nonprofit organizations. Such an
office would also be charged with setting minimum
safety standards and leading practices as well as researching and publishing data on participation andnational trends. With this change, USOPC would
be able to concentrate on supporting high-performance athletes, ensuring that the strongest national teams represent the United States in international competition, and fulfilling its responsibilities as
our National Olympic Committee and National
Paralympic Committee.

If athletes’ safety is as much of a public
value as fair competition, SafeSportneeds to have public support.
lic support. The $20 million annually that USOPC
must currently provide to SafeSport should instead be reinvested in improving conditions for our
high-performance athletes so they will be less vulnerable to abuse.
Recommendation #3: Congress should reform
certain SafeSport practices and reimagine the way
SafeSport operates at the youth and grassroots
level.

Congress must ensure that SafeSport has the resources it needs to clear its growing case backlog andno longer has a financial incentive to dismiss cases
administratively. Additionally, the system of requiring governing bodies to pay for SafeSport must end,
as it disincentivizes them from assisting victims incoming forward to file claims. Congress should also
prevent SafeSport from closing cases administratively when the only reason given is because victims
decline to participate in the investigative process
and risk re-traumatization. Participation in the Centralized Disciplinary Database should be expanded
to include more offenders, and the Commission
encourages the NCAA to require its member institutions to share information with SafeSport about
sanctioned or dismissed individuals for inclusion in
the database. Likewise, SafeSport should more closeRecommendation #2: Congress should makely coordinate with the NCAA to make sure colleges
SafeSport fully independent so it can earn athletes’ and universities are notified whenever the database
trust and be held more accountable to the moveis updated, in order to ensure that those sanctioned
ment and the public.
or banned from movement sports cannot find safe
haven in higher-education programs. At the youth
In order to ensure that athletes can fully trust and grassroots level, Congress ought to consider two
SafeSport to protect them and root out abuse in proposals for how SafeSport handles cases, either
movement sports, Congress must make it com- through a regional system or through an accreditapletely independent of USOPC and provide direct tion-based system—or both.
appropriations to enable the success of its mission.
In doing so, lawmakers should follow the success- Recommendation #4: The terms “amateur” andful funding model that has worked for USADA and “amateurism” should finally be retired from the U.S.
made it a beacon of confidence within the move- Olympic and Paralympic movement, and athletes’
ment. If athletes’ safety is as much of a public value rights—when participating in movement sports—
as fair competition, SafeSport needs to have pub- should be enshrined in law.

Summary of Findings & Recommendations

For decades, labeling athletes in movement sports as“amateurs” has served only to infringe on their rights,
limit their eligibility to compete, and deny recognition that they train with the same dedication andtime commitment as professional athletes. It also nolonger accurately describes the athletes who makeup Team USA. It is time for the movement to retirethat term from use. Congress can help by striking
the term from the statute, including by renaming
the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act as
the Ted Stevens Olympic and Paralympic Sports Act.
Meanwhile, USOPC, governing bodies, and stakeholders across the movement should participate ina culture change by refraining from using the term
“amateur” across all communication.

15

candidate meeting the required qualifications who
is a former high-performance athlete must be interviewed for every vacant executive position.
The Commission is also recommending that
USOPC formally implement a tiered system forthe governing bodies so that resources and obligations alike can be equitably distributed and with agreater positive impact. In the same vein, Congressshould grant the governing bodies ownership overtheir own trademarks. We also encourage USOPC
to contract with a professional management organization in order to lessen the administrative burden on small and medium-sized governing bodies. Recognizing the dangers to athlete safety andwell-being when sports are internally managed by
USOPC for long periods of time, the Commission
urges USOPC to create a standardized, time-limited process under which internally managed sports
are spun off on their own or integrated with existing governing bodies. In addition, USOPC should
disallow governing bodies from using USOPC-provided funds to offer supplemental podium bonuses beyond Operation Gold payments. Moreover,direct stipend support to athletes should increase
every quadrennium at a rate equal to the averageincrease in compensation for USOPC executives.

Words matter, but actions matter more. That is why
Congress should use this opportunity to recognize
under law that American athletes, when participating in movement sports, have certain fundamental
rights, including a safe and abuse-free environment,
name-image-likeness (NIL) rights, freedom from
retaliation, an affordable fee structure for national-team-selection competition events, and a timely
dispute-resolution process as it relates to competition and team selection. Moreover, Congress should
ensure that health-insurance coverage for athletes
in movement and collegiate sports are aligned so
nobody loses rights when moving between these Recommendation #6: Congress should strengthen
different sport contexts—as so many frequently do athletes’ representation by making the Team USA
during their years of training and competition.
Athletes’ Commission fully independent.
Recommendation #5: USOPC governanceprocesses must be improved.
While Congress must take important steps to reform the system, including by allowing the voting
franchise of ten-year athletes to choose anyone as
their board representatives, USOPC needs to playa role as well. This begins with closing loopholes
in its bylaws that allow exceptions to the qualifications of independent board members as well as addressing shortcomings with the board’s Nominatingand Governance Committee. Cooperation with theNCAA should be deepened through cross-board
representation as well. In order to ensure that executives fully understand the experiences of the athletes
they serve, USOPC should adopt a rule by which a

If the movement is to be truly athlete-centered,
there must be an entity athletes can trust to be beholden to no one but them, with a duty to protect
and empower athletes and to provide assistance,
including access to legal advice and help with thecost of representation, during disputes and arbitration. To achieve this, Congress should amend theTed Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act tomake the Team USA Athletes’ Commission completely independent and clarify its responsibilities
to athletes. Congress must ensure, in doing so, thatit has an independent, steady revenue stream tosupport the hiring of professional staff with powersthat include conducting policy and process auditsof movement institutions and referring athletes tooutside counsel. This entity should have an explicit

16

Summary of Findings & Recommendations

role in representing athletes’ concerns to USOPC,
the governing bodies, SafeSport, and USADA on
athletes’ behalf on issues concerning arbitration
processes, athlete-funding criteria, health-insurance eligibility, and national-team-selection criteria. Once the Team USA Athletes’ Commission
has been made fully independent, it should nevertheless continue to facilitate the election of athlete
representatives to the boards of USOPC and thegoverning bodies. To that end, USOPC and thegoverning bodies must be required to furnish theTeam USA Athletes’ Commission with up-to-datelists of names and contact information for all eligible high-performance athletes.
Recommendation #7: Congress should enhance
public oversight of the movement to ensure transparency, accountability, and due process at alllevels.

of USOPC, SafeSport, USADA, and the Team USA
Athletes’ Commission in order to ensure full transparency, due process, and accountability for those who
participate in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement. Such oversight would also provide policymakers
and movement leaders alike with a deeper understanding of challenges facing movement institutions, ensuring an independent lens through which Congress canbest assess their needs and how to help meet them.
Congress should also require, as part of this oversight,
semi-annual reports assessing whether athletes are receiving sufficient financial support in light of the levelof compensation afforded to executives at these four
entities and within the governing bodies. Moreover,any new oversight mechanism should ensure public
disclosures and accountability relating to U.S. bids tohost Olympic and Paralympic games.

Recommendation #8: Access and equality for
Paralympians and those participating in para
Without sufficient public oversight of movement insti- sports at all levels must be improved.
tutions, Congress will be unable to ensure that thesequasi-governmental organizations are carrying out the In order to ensure the equality of Olympic andpublic responsibilities they have been granted. That’s Paralympic participants, Congress should require
why it is essential that Congress establish a firm process that funds USOPC raises using Paralympic tradeof public oversight, which may take one of four forms. marks are earmarked exclusively to support athThe first option is a Senate-confirmed, multi-agen- letes in para sports. Moreover, USOPC should fundcy Inspector General for Sport serving the leaders of Olympic and Paralympic athlete support and sports
USOPC, SafeSport, USADA, and an independent development equitably and use its influence within
Team USA Athletes’ Commission. The second is a the IOC to use that body’s monopoly over licensdedicated mission team within the General Account- ing to negotiate equitable television and streamability Office issuing regular audits and reports to the ing coverage for future Paralympic games. While
Congressional committees of jurisdiction. The third is parity has now been achieved for Operation Goldan Office of Special Counsel for Sport—similar to the payments to U.S. Olympians and Paralympians,
current U.S. Office of Special Counsel—operating in- USOPC should use its position within the globdependently within the federal executive branch, and al movement to promote equality in prize awards
a fourth option would be to expand the authority of for those in para and non-para sports who medal
the current HHS Inspector General to cover the move- at world-championship-level competitions. At thement’s quasi-governmental institutions.
federal level, a new Office of Sports and Fitness
under HHS should be directed to launch competRegardless of which option Congress selects, there itive-grant programs dedicated to making school
must be routine, regular, and comprehensive oversight gymnasium and fitness facilities universally acces-...There must be routine, regular, and comprehensive oversight of USOPC, SafeSport,
USADA, and the Team USA Athletes’ Commission in order to ensure full transparency,
due process, and accountability for those who participate in the U.S. Olympic andParalympic movement.

Summary of Findings & Recommendations

sible as well as to publish and disseminate materials providing information about opportunities for
Americans with disabilities to participate in sports
and fitness programs where they live. The Commission also encourages the NCAA to work with its
member institutions to add and expand para sports
programs and treat them as varsity-level sports at
the highest levels of competition. Congress should
also study further the challenges faced by deaf andhard-of-hearing athletes and proposals to integrate
deaf sports into the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
movement; in the meantime, USOPC should workwith the U.S.A. Deaf Sports Federation to remove
impediments to its full use of Deaflympic trademarks and access to sponsorships.
Recommendation #9: Congress, state governments, USOPC, the NCAA, and other stakeholders
should take concrete steps to improve equitable
access to movement sports.

17

As more nations—as well as the IOC and the IPC—
move toward bids for future games that reach beyond just one city, it is time for USOPC to update
its own U.S. bid process and change the American
approach. As host of the upcoming 2028 Olympic
and Paralympic summer games—and with a strong
possibility of winning the right to stage the 2034
winter games—the United States has much to offer
the world and the global Olympic and Paralympic
movement. Officials at USOPC should work collaboratively with potential U.S. hosts of the games
to ensure cooperation, not competition. It should
encourage future bids to consider spreading thegames farther in order to defray costs and increase
the games’ positive impacts more broadly than justone metropolitan area. America should play hostto the games, not only a single city. Moreover, bids
should prioritize temporary venues over permanent ones wherever it is economical to do so, andathlete villages ought to be constructed in separate
clusters so that new affordable, medium-density
housing can be placed where it is most needed after
the games end. At the same time, U.S. bids shouldemphasize venues, housing, and transportation infrastructure built for universal accessibility, and bid
planners should be encouraged to think creatively
about scheduling the Olympics and Paralympics,
exploring benefits that might come from holding
both games concurrently. In order to control costs
better, USOPC, in partnership with the IOC andthe IPC, should consider establishing a captive insurance program that could provide broader coverage at a more affordable cost. This type of risk-management program could create a surplus that would
alleviate future insurance costs and, potentially,
become a profit center to help defray other hosting-related expenses. Congress may wish to makethe federal government a partner by providing abackstop and guarantee all U.S. bids.

If all Americans are to have equitable access to thebenefits of Olympic and Paralympic sports, Congress, states, and movement institutions will need totake a number of actions to address persistent gaps
and challenges. First, to promote wider participation—and recognizing the link between householdincome and children’s access to sports—Congressshould make certain costs associated with youthsports participation tax deductible for families
with primary- and secondary-school-aged children.
States can help facilitate age-appropriate play andsports engagement by requiring daily recess periods
for elementary and middle schools and physical-education classes at least twice per week. A newly created Office of Sports and Fitness under the Department of Health and Human Services should establish
a competitive-grant program to upgrade, repair, andexpand public sports facilities as well as launch newleagues and clinics in under-served communities. In
order to be eligible for funding, grantees should be Recommendation #11: Congress, USOPC, governrequired to adopt leading practices, such as positive ing bodies, and other stakeholders should partner
youth-development programming, safety standards, to improve coaching at all levels.
and excellence in coaching education.
Well-educated coaches dedicated to their sports
Recommendation #10: USOPC should adopt a new and to the values of the Olympic and Paralympic
model for organizing U.S. bids to host the Olympic
movement are an essential ingredient in the sucand Paralympic games.
cess of movement sports in our country. That’s why

18

Summary of Findings & Recommendations

policymakers and movement stakeholders together should begin a national dialogue on ways to improve coaching at all levels. The American Development Model ought to be universally adopted as
the foundation for coaching in this country, and its
embrace of multi-sport sampling and age-appropriate play should guide coaches as they help Americans access sports’ many lifelong benefits. Statesshould encourage public colleges and universities
to tap into already-existing course offerings and design degree or certificate programs in coaching andcoaching-related fields. At the same time, USOPC,
governing bodies, and movement stakeholders
should partner to launch new opportunities for volunteer coaches as well as for parents and guardians
to receive training and education so all can understand the American Development Model and how
to build and sustain healthy coach-athlete-parent/
guardian relationships while fostering life-longsports and fitness skills. To help, Congress ought
to make certain out-of-pocket expenses for parents
volunteering as youth-sports coaches tax deductible. It should do the same for course-enrollment
fees for coaching education and create a national
scholarship program offering grants or low-interest
loans to help students pursuing coaching careers.
Recommendation #12: Congress and statelegislatures should think creatively about new andsupplementary funding sources to support youth
and grassroots sports and the safety and wellbeing of our high-performance athletes.
With the Commission recommending that Congress take responsibility for supporting youth- andgrassroots-sports development through a new Office of Sports and Fitness under HHS, it should lookfor new and creative ways to raise additional revenues to support safety in, access to, and participation in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement.
Lawmakers may wish to consider options that include an excise tax on legal sports betting, which
is now permitted across a growing list of states, aswell as a voluntary donation checkbox on federal
income-tax filing forms and a national sports lottery. States are also encouraged to explore these options as they seek new ways to support youth andgrassroots sports at the state and local levels. Oneor more of these creative funding options mightalso be used in the future to provide SafeSport andthe Team USA Athletes’ Commission with independent funding.
CONCLUSION
These twelve sets of recommendations reflect thecareful and considered reasoning of the Commission based on the findings of our study in the ten
areas mandated by Congress as well as a broader
assessment of governance, public oversight, andgoal-attainment of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement. It is our hope that Congress,
USOPC, governing bodies, other stakeholders, andall who participate in the movement will draw onthese recommendations as a way to envision how
this movement can better reflect its noble mission
in service to the public good. We recognize, though,that our Commission can only provide a framework; we cannot bring about these recommended
changes. Our role has been as independent assessors. The next steps will be for others to take, andwe urge no delay in action.
As many of our global competitors continue to use
sports as a potent foreign-policy tool, it is essentialthat the United States take the steps needed now
to ensure that our system remains the envy of theworld, that our athletes can compete and win internationally, and that we can maintain a reputation
for upholding the highest principles of fair play andsportsmanship. Likewise, we must not miss this opportunity to embrace sports as a means to deliver
myriad benefits to American society, to our health,to our economy, and to the success of our democracy. A fixation on short-term solutions will not
suffice. As former Executive Director of the MLB
Players’ Association and the NHL Players’ Association Donald Fehr told our Commission during its
public hearing:
We can say: “Here’s a problem, how do we fix
it? Here’s another one, how do we fix it?” I suggest that that’s an endless task, and the problems of tomorrow are not going to be consistent
with the ones of today. What you need to dois create a different governmental framework

Summary of Findings & Recommendations

that works and then entrust the people operating that framework to solve the problems andhold them accountable if they don’t.

19

once again welcome the world as we host the 2028
Olympic and Paralympic summer games in Los Angeles. Between now and that time, let us come together as a nation—embracing one of the strongest
We need a better long-term vision for how we or- bonds we hold even in an era of much division—to
ganize Olympic- and Paralympic-movement sports reconceptualize the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
in America: one that ensures participants’ safety, movement as a reflection of our highest hopes andpromotes equitable access, and holds governing our greatest strengths. When our Olympic andsystems accountable through transparency and a Paralympic heroes bear the torch into the opencommitment to due process.
ing ceremonies of those American games, with theeyes of the world upon us, let us demonstrate not
Several of our recommendations specifically ask only the prowess of our athletes but the success ofCongress to enact new legislation amending and our reforms to protect and empower those athletes
updating the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur and all Americans wishing to participate in sports
Sports Act. Much of the work of reframing the U.S. for generations to come.
Olympic and Paralympic movement’s organizing
system would be best realized by enacting a new,twenty-first-century version of that statute. As a bipartisan commission, we hope that the majorities
and minorities in the House and Senate will be able
to find common ground in our shared purpose of
making movement sports fairer, safer, and better
accessible to more of our fellow Americans.
In other recommendations, we have asked statelegislatures to act. We have done so not only because we recognize the Constitutional limits of ourfederal system but because we have faith in thestates, U.S. territories, and District of Columbia
to embrace effective sports governance as a means
to achieve progress toward healthier, safer, andmore prosperous communities. Leadership at thestate and local levels in this national effort will goa long way toward helping both improve the landscape for sports and fitness in our communities andschools as well as build a stronger pipeline for the
long-term development of Olympic and Paralympic champions.
We have also encouraged action by USOPC, governing bodies, and other entities that play an important part in making this movement a success. It
is not for government alone to take a leading role inbuilding a new framework for movement sports in
our country. It must be a team exercise.
With our Commission’s work concluded, this common effort must begin. In four years, our nation will

20

Historical Background
THE OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC MOVEMENT IN AMERICA AND ”AMATEUR” SPORTS
Throughout our nation’s history, sports have played
a constructive role in promoting Americans’ health,social cohesion, understanding of democratic ideals, military readiness, and development of strong
communities. While professional and collegiate
sports leagues have grown to become a central partof our culture, the most influential athletics organizations have always been grassroots and community-based. From the earliest ages through adulthood,tens of millions of Americans continue to seek opportunities to play both team and individual sports
and to access the benefits derived from physical activity and friendly competition.

The term ‘amateur’ has often been used to describe
these non-professional athletes. However, in our
modern era, these ‘amateurs’ at the high-performance level (athletes on track to compete for spotsat the Olympic, Paralympic, Pan American, Parapan American, and world championship games intheir sports) spend no less time training, invest no
fewer of their own resources, and require no lesssupport from coaches and staff than their peers in
the professional leagues. The only difference between these high-performance athletes, functionally, has been a restricted ability for those termed‘amateur’ to access sufficient funding, stable benefits like health insurance, safety protections, andFor a long time, a clear distinction was made be- endorsement opportunities to help offset the cost
tween professional and ‘amateur’ sports, a differ- of their training.
ence embedded in how government has approachedsports oversight in this country for generations. Indeed, debates about both the nature of sports
Professional, commercial sport leagues with sala- ‘amateurism’ generally—and about ‘amateurism’
ried athletes fall under the jurisdiction of general as a condition of eligibility for participation in thelabor and business laws and regulations. Collegiate Olympic and Paralympic Games in particular—
sports continues to be regulated under state and have been ongoing since Baron Pierre de Coubertin
federal education statutes and under the private first conceived of the modern Olympic Games inNCAA. However, much of the non-professional the nineteenth century. Even in its earliest days, theyouth and grassroots sports landscape remained IOC he founded could not agree on a definition of
unregulated through the late 1970s—and, conse- ‘amateur’ and left that question to each internationquently, unsafe for many participants and without al sport governing body, resulting in confusion asa formal process of redress for discrimination and sports had different requirements for eligibility.3 In
malfeasance. These ‘amateur’ athletes, often seen the second half of the twentieth century, as the meby policymakers and the public as engaging in a dia landscape transformed, hundreds of millions ofpurer form of sports competition because they did people were brought into the viewing stands of inso for non-commercial purposes, were left without ternational competition in their own living rooms
key protections. Financial barriers to training, trav- through television. The economics of this transel, and competition excluded many who were not formation meant that athletes and sports officials
wealthy enough to bear the direct and indirect costs alike gained enormous revenue-generation potenof participating. Moreover, until very recently, par- tial as well as new financial pressures to train, comticipants in ‘amateur’ athletics were also prohibited pete, and win—and draw and maintain audiences
in many sports from joining professional leagues or that dwarfed anything Coubertin and those of hiseven accepting paid endorsement agreements and era could fathom. As historians Matthew Llewelthen returning to international competition to rep- lyn and John Gleaves observe in their book The Riseand Fall of Olympic Amateurism:
resent the United States.

3 Matthew Llewellyn and John Gleaves, The Rise and Fall of Olympic Amateurism (Champaign, Illinois: The University of Illinois Press,
2016), 7.

21

Perhaps most fatally, Coubertin committed
the Olympic Movement to a noncommercial
ideal in an age of rapidly expanding
commercial possibility. …The transformationof the Olympics into a televised, highly
commercialized global spectacle altered theIOC’s ideological compass. The IOC steadilytransformed into a modern corporation;
financial concerns and brand recognition
grew paramount. Eager to sell Olympic
broadcasting and commercial rights to thehighest bidder, the IOC faced heightenedpressures to promote an unrivaled product.
The Olympic program had to comprisethe most popular sports; the best athletes,
amateur or otherwise, had to compete. The“shamateur” ruse that had allowed athletes
to cash in while ostensibly remaining
amateur no longer suited any party. Things
had to change. Though tennis, ice hockey,
and association football (soccer) exploredearly forays into an “open” Olympics,
Michael Jordan and his Dream Team of U.S.
basketball superstars ushered in the fulltransformation of the Olympic Movementfrom an amateur affair to the professional
enterprise it has embraced in the 21st
century.4
By the mid-1990s, ‘amateurism’ in the Olympic andParalympic movement both in the United States andaround the world no longer accurately or adequately reflected the reality facing high-performanceathletes. Indeed, the IOC amended its eligibility
rules in 1987 to permit professional athletes in the
Olympics for the first time, and the 1992 Barcelona
Games featured many basketball, tennis, and other professionals competing for the United States.5
4Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in its unanimous
2021 NCAA v. Alston ruling, recognized that thedefinition of ‘amateurism’ in collegiate sports has
been changed over time by the NCAA, often as it
related to market conditions in the increasing commercialization of collegiate-sports competition.6
California enacted legislation in 20197 that enables
college athletes there to accept compensation in theform of scholarships and marketing endorsements
without losing their eligibility, a further erosion ofthe ‘amateurism’ distinction for those participatingin the nation’s most populous state, which has thelargest number of colleges and universities.8
During the period in their lives when these athletes
are training and competing, for all intents and purposes they are doing it to the same degree as professionals—often full time and always with their fullcommitment. That is why the Commission prefers
to describe athletes engaged in the U.S. Olympic
and Paralympic movement and its ideals not as ‘amateurs’ but as athletes participating in ‘movement
sports.’ This descriptor is far more apt—not only
because it includes those bound for international
competition at the highest levels but because it also
encompasses those who partake in the youth andgrassroots recreational sports across the country
that promote the movement’s values while forminga critical pipeline for identifying and developing
high-performance talent to represent the UnitedStates abroad.
This term is also broad enough to encompass participants in K-12 school sports. Unlike in many othercountries, in the United States our school systems
often serve as primary feeders for both collegiate
and professional sports, with robust—though unevenly funded—athletics programs. The same isIbid., 8.

5

Ibid., 185.

6

NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. __(2021).

7

California Secretary of State, Chapter 383, Statutes of 2019.

8 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall
2020, Institutional Characteristics component.

22

Historical Backgroundtrue for Olympic, Paralympic, Pan-American, Parapan-American, and world-championship athletes
and teams. Our schools, institutions of higher education, professional leagues, and grassroots leagues
and clubs form a symbiotic sports ecosystem where
athletes can participate to the best of their ability
and, if they are able, access pipelines to high-performance competition. The path to American
Olympic and Paralympic gold often runs straight
through the schoolyard and the college gymnasium.

monopolizing television broadcast rights for men’scollegiate athletic competitions, which had growntremendously in popularity and commanded wide
audiences both regionally and nationally. Until 1983,
women’s collegiate sports were governed under the
separate Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for
Women, after which the NCAA integrated women’s
sports under its umbrella. In 2023, the NCAA oversaw men’s and women’s competition in twenty-fourcollegiate sports, divided into three divisions, and it
continues to form a critical part of the pipeline for
For K-12 youth, multiple pathways to move- athletes training to represent the United States in inment-sports participation exist in the United States. ternational competition.
In addition to local clubs that offer both recreationaland competitive programs—including travel teams For many high-performance athletes, the NCAA’s Difor older youth that participate in regional, divi- vision I is the last stop on their way to the Olympics,
sional, or national tournaments—many American Paralympics, and world championships. Three-quarchildren access movement sports solely through ters of U.S. Olympians and a quarter of the Paralymprimary and secondary school-based intramural pians who represented our nation at the 2020and extramural programs. For both school-based Tokyo games participated in NCAA or other colleand club-based programs, the availability of differ- giate sports programs, and an even higher percentent sports often depends on factors such as region- age of the U.S. medalists in both of those games were
al access to sport-specific infrastructure (whether trained through the NCAA.9 Indeed, hundreds ofthere are nearby ski areas or bodies of water for Olympic and Paralympic athletes from other nations
sailing), population constraints (whether a com- come up through NCAA programs as well. “Why domunity is large enough to support one or multiple the world’s Olympic hopefuls come here?” sports histoteams), and funding. Ultimately, the availability of rian Victoria Jackson writes. “American colleges havefunding for school sports and local sports clubs has the best Olympic development infrastructure in thelong been the single greatest determiner of young world. If you are a young athlete with potential andAmericans’ ability to access movement sports in you want to make your country’s Olympic team, one
their communities.
of the best pathways is to come through the Americancollegiate system.”10 For young athletes not bound for
Although collegiate sports, overseen by the NCAA, international competition or professional leagues,
are not directly within the scope of this Commission’s collegiate sports programs also serve as a critical traninvestigation, it is impossible to look at Olympic and sition stage as they prepare for non-athletic careers.
Paralympic movement sports—at both the grassroots
and high-performance levels—in this country with- America’s high-performance sports pipeline stretchout exploring their relationship to higher education es from the playgrounds of our elementary schools
as well. Founded in 1906 as the Intercollegiate Ath- through the local youth clubs and all the way to theletic Association of the United States, the NCAA’s most acclaimed NCAA Division I teams. To underoriginal incarnation was as a body to adjudicate dis- stand how our nation has succeeded at identifying andputes on the development of game-play rules in men’s training global champions—and how, at times, we fallcollegiate sport leagues. By the 1960s, the NCAA had short in that effort while failing so many Americans by
developed into an organization focused greatly on limiting basic access to sports participation—it is es9 “Tokyo College Resource Hub: Team USA’s 2020 Collegiate Olympic Footprint,” U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, accessed May
22, 2017, https://www.usopc.org/tokyo-college-resource-hub/team-usas-2020-collegiate-olympic-footprint. See also: Corbin McGuire,“Over 400 NCAA athletes designated as elite by USOPC, sports governing bodies,” NCAA Media Center, November 21, 2023.
10 Victoria Jackson, “’We’re all complicit to an extent:’ How Team USA uses college football and basketball as funding sources,” The Athletic, July 22, 2021.

Historical Background23

sential to observe the history of government’s involve- In his special message to Congress on the state ofment in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement. health in America on March 4, 1968, President LynFor as long as athleticism has been understood to be don Johnson recognized the beneficial role of sports:a core component of American life, federal, state, and “Physical fitness activities and sports,” he asserted,
local governments have recognized the importance “contribute to more than health. They teach self-disof creating and expanding opportunities for Ameri- cipline and teamwork. They offer excitement and acans to access movement sports in the communities wholesome alternative to idleness. They combat delinwhere they live. In addition to strengthening our de- quency. They permanently enrich the individual andfense readiness by increasing the number of those his society by developing qualities of leadership andphysically fit for service, broader sports participation fair play.”11 That year, President Johnson incorporathas also long been seen as a critical tool for improving ed sports into the mission and the name of the adviAmericans’ health and lowering health-care costs in sory body originally launched by President Dwight
our economy. It has also been seen, correctly, as a tool Eisenhower in 1956 to promote physical fitness,for promoting greater civility and social cohesion in which exists still today as the President’s Council on
our diverse and multicultural democracy. Movement Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition.12 Later, Presidents
sports help build the connective tissue of our demo- Richard Nixon and Ford, respectively, created andcratic society.
expanded a Presidential Sports Award to encourage
Americans’ grassroots-sports participation.13
11 Lyndon B. Johnson, Special Message to the Congress: “Health in America,” March 4, 1968. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley,
The American Presidency Project, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/237494.
12 “History of the Council,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, accessed July 19, 2023, https://health.gov/our-work/nutrition-physical-activity/presidents-council/history-council.
13

Ibid.

24

Historical Background

The roots of government’s role in supporting movement sports, however, go back much farther. Fromschool gyms to sports and fitness infrastructure
incorporated into neighborhood parks and playgrounds, public investment in promoting sports participation has been ubiquitous across the country for
generations. As the United States became more engaged in global affairs in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, this integration of athleticism
into American culture extended to participation ininternational competition. When Baron de Coubertin opened the first modern Olympic Games in 1896,
Americans not only competed in three of the nine
sports but won twenty medals—including the mostgold medals of any participating delegation.
The Olympic—and later Paralympic—Games provided U.S. athletes not only the chance to bring glory
home to their communities; it also involved them ina broader effort to demonstrate the success of America’s system of democracy and individual opportunity. During the Cold War period, this latter point
became far more salient, with an increased sense of
the stakes in competition between American andSoviet-bloc athletes at the Olympic Games. (As theSoviet Union and many Communist-bloc nations
did not participate in the Paralympic Games before
1988, and American athletes dominated para-sports
during that period, Paralympic medal counts did
not elicit the same concern by the public and policymakers.) Leaders and citizens alike closely observed
Olympic medal counts, assigning them the status ofa benchmark in assessing whether the democratic
world or the Communist world held an advantage—
not only in the development of its most talented athletes but in the efficacy of its approach to government and economics.

tables in post-war Olympics until 1956, after which
it was overtaken by the Soviet Union; this was repeated in 1960. In 1964, the two nations split thedifference, with American athletes winning themost gold medals but Soviets earning more medals
overall. After leading the medal count in the 1968
Summer Olympic Games in Mexico City, the United States slipped behind again in 1972 and then saw
Soviet and, in particular, East German athletes substantially increase their podium dominance by the
1976 Montreal games. (See Appendix II for medal
counts from the past sixty years.) Leaders in Congress and the Ford Administration recognized theneed to study and reassess systemic challenges thatwere impeding U.S. performance at these highest
levels of international sports competition.
One of the immediate concerns centered on theselection process for Olympic teams. For the
Paralympics—and its earlier incarnation, the Stoke
Mandeville Games—U.S. team selection was haphazard and determined differently for each sport.
For the Olympics, the organization responsible
for assembling U.S. teams was the volunteer, nonprofit Amateur Athletic Union (AAU). Founded in1888 by those seeking to standardize regulations
and practices among movement-sport leagues, theAAU had held a monopoly on U.S. athlete and teamselection for major international competitions, including the Olympic Games, for decades. Startingin 1947, however, with the decision by ice-hockey
players and coaches to organize an alternative U.S.
governing body and successfully seek its international recognition, the AAU began to lose its gripon this authority.

In the early 1960s, sport associations under theumbrella of the NCAA competed with the AAU for
THE 1976-77 PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION
international recognition. In 1961, coaches and ofAND THE TED STEVENS OLYMPIC AND AM- ficials in track and field as well as basketball broke
ATEUR SPORTS ACTfrom the AAU and launched NCAA-affiliated governing bodies that succeeded in attaining internaBy the mid-1970s, increasing Soviet-bloc domi- tional recognition. Competition between the AAU
nance in the Olympic medal counts led to a reas- and the NCAA during the 1960s and early 1970s to
sessment of America’s high-performance sports secure control over the various movement sports
strategy. The United States dominated the medal in this country grew as heated as the rivalry be-Historical Background

tween East and West playing out at the quadrennial
Olympic games.14
By the late 1970s, concerns within the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement about AAU mismanagement of team selection—including prohibitions on athletes traveling to certain foreign-hosted
competitions because of conflicts with domestic
events—intersected with policymakers’ broader
concerns about Olympic medal performance. One
U.S. athlete who medaled at the 1956 Melbourne
Olympics complained of the stark financial imbalance between AAU executives and the athletes
under their authority: “The $15-a-day expense account permitted athletes by the AAU is completely
unrealistic,” he told Sports Illustrated magazine in
1961. “Let the AAU officials try and live like athletes,
and they wouldn’t waste any time trying to do something about it. On this kind of money the officials
would have to cut out some of their cocktail parties.”15 In 1960, the AAU sent the U.S. men’s trackand field team to the Olympics on an outdated
propeller aircraft that took fourteen hours to reach
Europe. There, they were required to participate ina meet shortly after arrival in Switzerland before
being placed on yet another fourteen-hour journey
to Rome, this time by train. Unsurprisingly, the athletes, exhausted, did not perform at their best. “We
didn’t qualify anyone in the 5,000 meters or the halfmile,” one of them later recounted. “And the guys
got eliminated on times and distances that were farless than their best.”16 Such issues helped propel U.S.
track and field athletes and coaches to mutiny andleave the AAU’s umbrella. Those in several othersports followed.17
Determined to understand systemic failings that
affected U.S. medal performance, on June 19, 1975,
President Ford issued Executive Order 11868,
launching the President’s Commission on Olympic
Sports. Charged with investigating jurisdictional
disputes among American sports organizations
and impediments to U.S. medal performance in in-

25

ternational competition, the fully bipartisan commission was composed of twenty-two members,
including four U.S. representatives and four U.S.
senators. It was led by Gerald Zornow, then-Chairman of the Board of the Eastman Kodak Company
and a former professional baseball player and college basketball star. Former Nixon and Ford WhiteHouse aide and consultant to the President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Michael Harrigan served as Executive Director. After seventeen
months of investigation and analysis, that commission issued its final report on January 13, 1977.
The President’s Commission final report focused
its attention on organizational deficiencies as aroot cause both of ongoing disputes within the U.S.
Olympic and Paralympic movement and of impediments to American athletes’ top performance ininternational competition. It also zeroed in on theneed for greater funding to promote athletic development and broader sports participation at alllevels in order to build a pipeline of talent and ability for the future. In their executive summary, thecommissioners noted:
America’s weakness in sport is not lack of talent, for it has awesome talent which has kept
the country’s Olympic performances respectable. And it is certainly not lack of resources,
although it is clear to this Commission that
potential sources of financing have not beentapped and that facilities and knowledge havenot been used to their greatest advantage. No,
it is precisely America’s great strength in the
exploration of space which is our greatest
weakness in sport: organization. U.S. sports
organizations are fragmented, not bound bycommon purpose or any effective coordinating
system. No clear policy or direction in amateur
sports, physical education, or physical fitness
can be or has been maintained. Incessant organizational squabbles waste time and talentand threaten the fundamental rights of ath-

14 Howard Chudacoff, “AAU v. NCAA: The Bitter Feud that Altered the Structure of American Amateur Sports,” Journal of Sport History,
Vol. 48, No. 1 (Spring, 2021), 53-58.
15

Tex Maule, “The End of the AAU,” Sports Illustrated, September 26, 1961.

16

Ibid.

17

Chudacoff, “AAU v. NCAA,” 53-58.

26

Historical Backgroundletes to take part in the most challenging competition for which they are qualified. Feast andfamine exist side by side. Men’s college athletic opportunities are extensive and rewarding,while those for women or non-school athletes
are spare and the experiences often embittering.18

taken. The commissioners also recognized, though,that some degree of oversight and centralization
would be required to achieve the goals with which
it had been charged. They prefaced their final report with an acknowledgement that:
The federal government has never attempted
to direct amateur athletics in this country, norshould it. …In spite of the handicaps we choose
to impose upon ourselves, our national characteristics of individualism, perseverance, andesprit-de-corps have resulted in outstanding
athletic performance by U.S. athletes. It is also
apparent, however, that we will not be able tocompete effectively for long and have broadbased participation if the organizational conflicts and fragmentation which plague American amateur athletics today are not resolved.21

In addition to suggesting structural changes toaddress organization, the commissioners recommended a system of binding arbitration to resolve
disputes between athletes and officials and protect
athletes’ rights, Congressional funding of at least$83 million annually to support movement-sports
programs, the creation of national training centers
for high-performance athletes, the establishmentof a central clearinghouse for research in sports
medicine, and initiatives to increase the participation of women and Americans with disabilities in
sports.19 20
With the President’s Commission final report, Congress and the executive branch were challenged to
As important as its specific findings and recom- focus on how government might provide effective
mendations, the President’s Commission final re- oversight for movement sports in a way that was
port touched on a critical idea long in the making: both rooted in American ideals and establish a systhat the federal government has a responsibility to tem recognized by athletes, coaches, officials, andreflect the public interest by ensuring public over- spectators as fair, equitable, safe, and accountable.
sight of America’s movement-sports system. Until
this time, movement sports had effectively been Congress took that commission’s findings and recan unregulated space, with all the requisite risk ommendations and drew heavily on them in its anfor abuse, financial mismanagement by sports of- swer to that challenge. Senator Ted Stevens, one of
ficials, and violations of athletes’ rights. The Pres- the commissioners, introduced the Amateur Sports
ident’s Commission recognized the long history in Act in March 1978. After its passage by the House
our country of keeping direct federal-government and Senate that October, it was signed into law by
involvement out of sports and other areas seen as President Carter on November 8, 1978, ushering in
the purview of private individuals and organiza- a new era for U.S. Olympic and Paralympic sports
tions. At the time, the rigid top-down management and athletes.22 Twenty years later, the law would beof sports in the Soviet bloc served as a reminder of renamed the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur
how far to the extreme sports regulation could be Sports Act in honor of its chief sponsor.23

18 U.S. Government Printing Office, The Final Report of the President’s Commission on Olympic Sports (Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1977), 1.
19

Ibid.

20 Throughout this report, our Commission employs “person-first” language when referencing those with disabilities. However, the Commission also recognizes that many within the disability community prefer “identity-first” language, and we intend all references to Paralympians and those with disabilities to encompass everyone in the community with respect to individual preferences for self-identification.
21

U.S. Government Printing Office, The Final Report of the President’s Commission on Olympic Sports, ix.

22Pub. L. 95-606.

23

Pub. L. 105-277.

Historical Background

27

The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act24
effected the most radical change urged by the President’s Commission, providing a “vertically integratedorganizational structure”25 for what it then termed‘amateur sports.’ Now, instead of the free-for-all withaffiliated sports organizations competing for international recognition, National Governing Bodies(NGBs) would be certified under the auspices of one
federally recognized and overseen entity. From thatorganization down through the NGBs and all the way
to local leagues and clubs, American athletes, coaches, and sports officials would be joined in a single,
unified system to promote broad participation, facilitate sports development, and identify top talent torepresent the nation in competitions abroad. Moreover, rival efforts at fundraising and overlapping systems of financial management would be set aside infavor of a more centralized structure for raising andallocating funds to support movement sports.

To ensure that this newly restructured USOPC
would heed athletes’ input and adopt strong policies and procedures through deliberation, the Ted
Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act createda governance structure based on a model of democratic representation. USOPC would adopt bylaws
under which it would be governed by a 400-person
House of Delegates, with a system of committees
to help guide decision-making in the organization’sareas of responsibility. The Act further requiredthat 20% of all voting seats in the USOPC Houseof Delegates and NGB boards would be filled byathletes.28 In 1973, an Athletes’ Advisory Council(AAC)29 was formed by athletes seeking to share
their perspectives collectively with NGB–and later
USOPC–leadership, though it would not be formally recognized in the legislation and the movement’s
governance structure until the Act was amended in
1998. Nevertheless, this AAC played a role in organizing athlete representation within this system
The organization chosen by Congress—at the recom- established by the Act.
mendation of the President’s Commission—to be reshaped into the new umbrella for movement sports Prior to the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur
was the U.S. Olympic Committee. Launched formal- Sports Act in 1978, USOPC’s role primarily was
ly in 1921 as the American Olympic Association, it to organize transportation for U.S. athletes particwas known from 1945-1961 as the U.S. Olympic As- ipating in the Olympic Games and help facilitatesociation. In September 1950, Congress took its first American cities’ bids to host the Olympics. With
step into movement-sports oversight by enacting the enactment of that legislation, USOPC was
legislation granting the U.S. Olympic Association a transformed into a central organization with exfederal charter as a private, nonprofit corporation clusive jurisdiction over non-school sports fallingand permitting it to solicit tax-deductible dona- outside the professional and collegiate leagues astions.26 Furthermore, it provided the Association well as the right to recognize the NGBs—and, latwith exclusive U.S. trademark over Olympic sym- er, Paralympic Sport Organizations (PSOs)—forbols, slogans, and terminology for the purposes of each movement sport in the country. Instead ofraising revenue through licensing. In 1961, the Asso- providing Congressionally appropriated funding,ciation changed its name again to the U.S. Olympic as the President’s Commission had recommended,
Committee, and in 2019 it became the U.S. Olympic the law confirmed USOPC’s ownership of Olympic-related (and later Paralympic) trademarks fromand Paralympic Committee (USOPC).27
which it could derive licensing fees. What had been
24 For consistency, the Commission will refer to the legislation throughout this report by its current, amended title, the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, even when describing its previous iterations.
25 U.S. Government Printing Office, The Final Report of the President’s Commission on Olympic Sports, 35-43.
26

Act of September 21, 1950, 64 Stat. 899.

27 For consistency, the Commission will refer to the organization throughout this report by its current name, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC), even when describing its previous iterations.
28

Pub. L. 95-606.

29 In 2023, the USOPC Athletes’ Advisory Council (AAC) changed its name to the Team USA Athletes’ Commission (AC). Our Commission
will refer to this organization by its original name in this section and then by its current name in the subsequent “Findings” and “Recommendations” sections of the report.

28

Historical Backgrounddismissed by many athletes and sports organizations before as little more than a travel agency now
held immense power over both through its controlof the purse strings and its authority to recognize
only those governing bodies that would abide by its
rules and decisions.

(4) to obtain for the United States, directly or bydelegation to the appropriate national governing
body, the most competent amateur representation possible in each event of the Olympic Games,
the Paralympic Games, the Pan-American
Games, and the Parapan American Games;32

In addition to setting up its governance structure,
the Act placed on USOPC a number of clear, statutory mandates that reflected Congress’s intention
both to restore organizational stability to the U.S.
Olympic and Paralympic movement as well as topromote broader national goals with regard to
movement sports and physical fitness. As enacted
and amended,30 the purposes of the USOPC under
its mandate from Congress are as follows:(5) to promote and support amateur athletic activities involving the United States and foreign
nations;(1) to establish national goals for amateur athletic activities and encourage the attainment of
those goals;(2) to coordinate and develop amateur athletic
activity in the United States, directly related tointernational amateur athletic competition, tofoster productive working relationships amongsports-related organizations;(3) to exercise exclusive jurisdiction, directly or
through constituent members of committees,
over—(A) all matters pertaining to United States
participation in the Olympic Games, theParalympic Games, the Pan-American Games,
and the Parapan American Games, including representation of the United States in thegames; and(B) the organization of the Olympic Games, theParalympic Games, the Pan-American Games,
and the Parapan American Games when heldin the United States;31(6) to promote and encourage physical fitness
and public participation in amateur athletic activities;(7) to assist organizations and persons concernedwith sports in the development of amateur athletic programs for amateur athletes;(8) to provide swift resolution of conflicts and disputes involving amateur athletes, national governing bodies, and amateur sports organizations,and protect the opportunity of any amateur athlete, coach, trainer, manager, administrator, or
official to participate in amateur athletic competition;(9) to foster the development of and access toamateur athletic facilities for use by amateur
athletes and assist in making existing amateur
athletic facilities available for use by amateur
athletes;33(10) to provide and coordinate technical information on physical training, equipment design,
coaching, and performance analysis;(11) to encourage and support research, development, and dissemination of information in theareas of sports medicine and sports safety;(12) to encourage and provide assistance to amateur athletic activities for women;

30 Pub. L. 95-606. The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act was amended by Congress on a bipartisan basis in 1998, 2018, and
2020.
31

Paragraph (3) was amended by Congress in 1998 and 2020.

32

Paragraph (4) was amended by Congress in 1998 and 2020.

33

Paragraph (9) was amended by Congress in 2020.

Historical Background(13) to encourage and provide assistance to amateur athletic programs and competition foramateur athletes with disabilities, including,where feasible, the expansion of opportunities
for meaningful participation by such amateur
athletes in programs of athletic competition forable-bodied amateur athletes;34(14) to encourage and provide assistance to amateur athletes of racial and ethnic minorities forthe purpose of eliciting the participation of thoseminorities in amateur athletic activities in which
they are underrepresented;(15) to promote a safe environment in sports thatis free from abuse, including emotional, physical,
and sexual abuse, of any amateur athlete;35 and(16) to effectively oversee the national governing bodies with respect to compliance with andimplementation of the policies and proceduresof the corporation, including policies and procedures on the establishment of a safe environment
in sports as described in paragraph (15).36

29

resources and attention at every level broadly. To
sturdy the top rung of the ladder, USOPC would
now need to get to work strengthening all those below.
Congress, however, perhaps cognizant of the same
currents in American political culture that led thecommissioners to shy away from endorsing fullgovernment oversight of movement sports, set up
USOPC as, in effect, an amateur and not government regulator. That is, it established a quasi-governmental, private organization charged with acting in the public interest but without the funding,
structure, full transparency, institutional expertise,or public accountability of a government agency.
As Commission Co-Chair Dionne Koller noted ina 2019 article: “Hybrid, quasi-governmental organizations are less likely than federal agencies to effectuate the policy preferences of Congress and thePresident. In fact, such entities are incentivized toresist what they perceive as burdensome policy objectives because of the competing obligations quasi-governmental entities carry.”37 Congress had,
however, contemplated making USOPC’s oversight

Paragraphs (2) and (6) are of particular
Congress’s intention was unambiguous: the bestnote in that Congress charged USOPC
way to promote long-term success in internationalwith more than just overseeing U.S.
competition at the highest levels would be to invest
participation in international comperesources and attention at every level broadly.
tition and developing the high-performance talent to represent our country
abroad. USOPC would now also serve as the na- role stronger. In the first draft of the Ted Stevens
tion’s chief body responsible for coordinating and Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, its sponsors had
developing movement sports at all levels. In doing written that one of the USOPC’s mandates would
so, it further required USOPC to focus on equity in be “to coordinate, develop, and direct amateur athaccess, including paragraphs (12), (13), and (14) to letic activity in the United States.” The word “dimake it clear that it would carry a special responsi- rect” was later stripped from the final version thatbility to promote the inclusion of women, minori- would eventually be enacted after NCAA officials
ties, and those with disabilities in movement sports. expressed concern that USOPC might then haveCongress’s intention was unambiguous: the best the authority to undermine its control of collegiate
way to promote long-term success in international sports.38
competition at the highest levels would be to invest
34

Paragraph (13) was amended by Congress in 1998.

35

Paragraph (15) was added by Congress through amendment in 2018.

36

Paragraph (16) was added by Congress through amendment in 2020.

37 Dionne Koller, “Amateur Regulation and the Unmoored United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee,” Wake Forest Law Review 9(November 30, 2019): 97.
38

Chudacoff, “AAU v. NCAA,” 62.

30

Historical Background

Furthermore, by refusing to provide it with funds
other than what it could raise on its own throughfees and licensing contracts, Congress set USOPC
a broad mandate without the commitment of commensurate resources. From the very start, USOPC
and governing-body officials were required to makestrategic choices about the prioritization of resources and attention. Not surprisingly, this quickly
led to a tug of war between a focus on high-performance, international-competition-level athletes
and on coordinating and developing youth andgrassroots sports. The ramifications of that tension
and USOPC officials’ decision-making would eventually bear significant and tragic consequences forathlete safety, equity in sports participation, andthe U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement’s public accountability.
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE U.S. OLYMPICAND PARALYMPIC MOVEMENT FROM
1978-1998
The 1978 reforms effected by the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act may have set the UnitedStates on a more solid long-term path forward in promoting and developing Olympic—and later Paralympic—movement sports, but it did not deliver nearterm results with regard to Olympic medaling. The
United States hosted the 1980 winter games in Lake
Placid but continued to see Soviet and East German
athletes dominate the medal table there. The UnitedStates and other Western-bloc nations boycotted the1980 Moscow Olympics that summer. The 1984 Sarajevo Winter Olympics were a repeat of Lake Placid, with U.S. athletes behind in each medal category
and far behind the Soviets and East Germans in theoverall count. A few months later, the Soviets reciprocated the Western boycott from four years prior, andthe United States dominated the 1984 Los Angeles
Summer Olympics without the challenge of Communist-bloc competition. In 1988, with neither bloc boycotting, a return to East-West competition again saw
U.S. athletes medal behind their Soviet and East German competitors in Seoul. The winter games that year
in Calgary were abysmal for the United States, placing

ninth for overall medals and bringing home just twogold medals to the Soviets’ eleven.
As the 1988 Calgary Olympics drew to a close,
USOPC President Robert Helmick announced aneleven-person Olympic Overview Commission,
led by USOPC Executive Board Member and New
York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner. Thatinternal commission was tasked with making reform recommendations that would address U.S.
medal-count performance. On February 19, 1989,
Steinbrenner and the other ten commissioners delivered their report to USOPC’s House of Delegates.
The report’s topline finding could not have beenstated more clearly: “winning medals must always
be the primary goal” of USOPC.39 It focused on
the organization’s finances and urged changes tostreamline revenue-raising as well as targeted investments in athletes and sports most likely to yield
medals in international competition. The report
recommended, among other things, that USOPC
launch a new committee to identify talent at a
younger age and encourage those athletes to train
for top competitions earlier. Furthermore, it urged
an end to the more-democratic governance structure provided by the House of Delegates and committees, instead proposing a corporate-style Boardof Directors with fewer members. Marketing operations should be modeled after those of the professional National Football League (NFL), it suggested,
and moved from Colorado Springs to New York to
tap into that city’s media market and fundraising
networks.40 “With the limited resources available,”the commissioners wrote, “the [USOPC] must focus on activities that are central to its mission, andnot weaken its effort by trying to be all things to all
people.”41
While the report suggested seeking funding from
Congress to support USOPC’s efforts, Congresshas still never directly provided appropriations for
movement-sports development. The original Congressional mandate handed down to USOPC in the
Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act re-

39

U.S. Olympic Committee, Report of the Olympic Overview Commission (Colorado Springs: U.S. Olympic Committee, 1989).

40

Ibid.

41

Ibid.

Historical Background31

mains an unfunded one. Then-USOPC President
Helmick told The New York Times in the wake of
the Olympic Overview Commission’s report that
“we have a prudent need for money. If Congress andthe American people want us to fulfill our responsibility, they could help us.”42

later in Lillehammer. When the Olympics came to
Atlanta in 1996, the United States topped the medal
charts for the first time since 1968 and has won themost overall medals in every summer games since.
By the time our country hosted the winter gamesin Salt Lake City in 2002, U.S. athletes were able tomove up to third position in winter overall medals.
Just a decade after Congress reorganized USOPC The United States came second in Turin in 2006, andand provided it with a mandate to promote the de- then reached first overall in Vancouver in 2010, withvelopment of the Olympic and Paralympic pipeline U.S. winter athletes continuing to be highly competacross the country, the organization’s leaders set itive. The extent, however, to which the collapse ofthat responsibility aside in order to focus almost the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War, shortly
entirely on winning medals and generating reve- after the Olympic Overview Commission delivered
nue. Adopting the Olympic Overview Commis- its report, contributed to comparatively better U.S.
sion’s recommendations, USOPC began to reorient medal-count performance is indeterminable.
itself around this ‘medals and money’ ethos. Alongwith dismantling its House of Delegates in favor of The impact of this ‘medals and money’ attitude bya corporate-style, 101-member Board of Directors, USOPC and the governing bodies trickled down to
it altered its approach to seeking revenue through the very foundations of movement sports as well.
licensing.43 Those steps were followed by the cre- With funding being targeted almost exclusively toation of programs to direct funding strategically ward talent identification, athlete specialization, andto NGBs and high-performance-athlete develop- high-performance training and development, a vacment initiatives that promised to nurture medal uum began to emerge in youth and grassroots sports
winners. The results were unsurprising; journalist across the country. This coincided with federal fundand founder of the Aspen Institute’s Sports and So- ing for public education in the 1980s declining relaciety Program Tom Farrey
later observed: “Monetary
With funding being targeted almost exclusively toward talentawards for medal perforidentification, athlete specialization, and high-performance
mances were created—andtraining and development, a vacuum began to emerge insupport for organizations
that develop nonelite athyouth and grassroots sports across the country.
letes withered.”44

While the impact on movement sports at all otherlevels would be far-reaching, USOPC’s reorientation to a singular focus on high-performance athletes seemed to achieve its purpose. U.S. athletes
performed better in the Olympic medal count inBarcelona in 1992, coming close at the heels of theformer Soviet bloc that competed as the Unified
Team. In Albertville that year, U.S. winter athletesbrought the country back up into the fifth place inoverall medals, with a repeat performance two years

tive to inflation.45 As funding for school sports fell
and as club resources from governing bodies dwindled, private organizations—both nonprofit andfor-profit—moved in to fill the vacuum. In the 1980s
and 1990s, AAU—having been displaced by USOPC
as the arbiter of national team selection and Olympic and Paralympic movement sports regulation—
rebranded itself as a youth-focused sports enterpriseand grew a network of youth leagues and championship tournaments that bring in millions of dollars an-

42

Michael Janofsky, “U.S.O.C. Goes to Work on Steinbrenner’s Report,” The New York Times, February 21, 1989.

43

Michael Janofsky, “U.S.O.C. Aims at More Efficiency and Profitability, The New York Times, February 12, 1990.

44

Tom Farrey, Game On: The All-American Race to Make Champions of Our Children (New York: ESPN Books, New York, 2008), 191.

45

Mark Pitsch, “Education Spending Declined During 80’s, Report Says,” Education Week, June 5, 1991.

32

Historical Backgroundnually in membership and participation fees.46 One
for-profit network of local youth-club franchisesthat launched in 2003 now has more than 3 million
participants between ages three and fourteen in a
multitude of sports.47 Its founder noted the opportunity he and other entrepreneurs saw as USOPC andgoverning bodies disengaged and left behind “highly
disorganized” local clubs: “profit centers disguised as
sports leagues.”48 By 2019, the youth-sports industry
in the United States was estimated to be worth $19.2
billion, larger than the professional NFL.49 Many ofthese private organizations, which operate their own
leagues and tournaments, fall outside of the governing bodies’ jurisdiction for oversight or the strategic
allocation of resources to under-served sports.

significant update to the 1978 legislation. On October 21 of that year, Congress enacted their Ted
Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act as partof its omnibus appropriations package.52 This series of amendments to the original law expanded
USOPC’s oversight authority to PSOs; recognized
the AAC as the official representative body forhigh-performance athletes within the movement
and gave it the power to elect a minimum of 20%
representation on USOPC’s Board of Directors bycurrent or recently retired athletes under the tenyear rule;53 mandated the establishment by USOPC
of an Athlete Ombuds to inform athletes of theirrights and provide assistance during disputes;
among other changes to USOPC practices and procedures.54 The amendment also provided for federal-court jurisdiction over any cases brought against
USOPC.55 Additionally, one other very consequential provision was included in this amendment: thestatute now clarified that athletes could not seek injunctive relief in court against USOPC in disputes
relating to their participation within the movement.
With athletes unable to sue USOPC, their only
hope for resolution has continued to be throughthe established arbitration processes.56 Congress’s
actions in 1998, however, did not address the issueof USOPC prioritizing high-performance competition over the promotion and development of movement sports in the United States generally.

In 1995, with the summer Olympic games in Atlanta approaching, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
reported that more than 99% of USOPC’s budget
for athlete development was being allocated tosupport high-performance, international-competition-bound athletes, abandoning its responsibility
nearly in full to support broader movement-sports
participation.50 In response, the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held asubcommittee hearing to evaluate the Ted Stevens
Olympic and Amateur Sports Act and examine
whether USOPC was meeting its statutory mandate. Reacting to senators’ concerns, USOPC President LeRoy Walker paraphrased the 1989 Olympic
Overview Commission report: “We cannot be all CREATION OF THE U.S.
things to all people with limits on our resources.”51
ANTI-DOPING AGENCY
In 1998, led by Sens. Ted Stevens, Ben Nighthorse
Campbell, and John Chafee, Congress made its first

The next serious reform Congress made to the organization of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic move-46

Internal Revenue Service, 2020, “Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: Amateur Athletic Union of the U.S. Inc.”

47“What is i9 Sports?” i9 Sports, accessed May 22, 2023, https://www.i9sportsfranchise.com/.

48“Inside i9 Sports, the American youth-sports empire where everyone wins,” Tampa Bay Times, January 3, 2014.

49“Youth Sports Market Projected to Reach $77.6 Billion by 2026,” Research and Markets, December 26, 2019.

50

Joe Drape, “U.S. Olympic system rapped for shortchanging children,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 19. 1995.

51

Christine Brennan, “Spirited Olympic Hearing,” The Washington Post, October 19, 1995.

52

Pub. L. 105-277.

53 Under Pub. L. 105-277, athletes eligible to vote for representatives to the USOPC and NGB boards must be “actively engaged in amateur athletic competition or who have represented the United States in international amateur athletic competition within the preceding ten
years.”
54 U.S. Senators Jerry Moran and Richard Blumenthal, “The Courage of Survivors: A Call to Action,” Senate Commerce, Science, andTransportation Subcommittee on Manufacturing, Trade, and Consumer Protection, July 30, 2019.
55

Pub. L. 105-277.

56 Dionne Koller, “A Twenty-First Century Olympic and Amateur Sports Act,” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 20,
no. 4, (Summer 2018): 1051.

Historical Backgroundment was prompted by public outcry in the late
1990s over the use of performance-enhancing drugs
across professional, collegiate, and movement sports.
Clean, drug-free competition has always been a central tenet of the Olympic and Paralympic movement,
including in the IOC’s Olympic Charter, whichstates that the Olympic spirit is based in “friendship,solidarity, and fair play.”57 Doping, unfortunately,
had been ubiquitous across Olympic and Paralympic competition since its origins, casting a cloud of
doubt over the fairness of all competition. With theadvent of technologies better able to screen for performance-enhancing drugs in the 1960s and 1970s,
cases of doping—including doping orchestrated bynational delegations—were brought to light.
After enacting legislation in 1990 to prohibit physicians from providing athletes with performance-enhancing drugs for no medically necessary reason,58
Congress continued to confront the issue throughout the decade. In a 1999 Senate Commerce, Science,
and Transportation Committee hearing, then-Director of the White House’s Office of National Drug
Control Policy (ONDCP) Barry McCaffrey told lawmakers that “we have a wide-spread use of doping
agents throughout the United States among youngadolescents. We are talking about 550,000 kids using steroids in 1995, and the number is undoubtedly
greater now.”59 With USOPC’s—and America’s—international reputation threatened by the growing use
of performance-enhancing drugs in U.S. Olympic
and Paralympic sports, both Congress and ONDCP
initiated action to address the challenge of doping,particularly urgent given the United States hosting
the winter 2002 Olympic and Paralympic Games inSalt Lake City.60

33

tered on the premise that a new agency would need
to be created that had buy-in both from stakeholders
across the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement
and from the federal government. The National Anti-Doping Strategy explained:
In order to be effective, such an agency mustbe fully independent and must have certain
governmental or quasi-governmental powers.
With the powers of governmental status, however, must come the responsibilities of public
service—most notably the duties of transparency and accountability to the American taxpayer. Further, an independent anti-doping
agency would benefit substantially—both athome and abroad—from the added credibility offered by governmental oversight. Limited,but effective, oversight, accountability, andtransparency would allow the United States todispel the perceived conflicts of interests andthe “fox guarding the hens” reputation that unfortunately now plagues the program.61

Though USOPC initially launched the entity thatwould eventually become the U.S. Anti-Doping
Agency (USADA), Director McCaffrey and ONDCP continued to engage closely with Congress tofacilitate USADA’s authorization in November 2001
as the independent, quasi-governmental body envisioned in the National Anti-Doping Strategy. Additionally, ONDCP secured the provision of annual
appropriations to ensure USADA’s independence
from USOPC.62 63 Since then, USADA has been
statutorily responsible for setting formal processes for drug testing, standardizing anti-doping rules,
and sanctioning those found in violation. Other
than funding appropriated for its use by Congress
From the very start, ONDCP played a key role in through ONDCP, USADA derives additional oppromoting a response to doping. Its National An- erating funds—and independence—from contract
ti-Doping Strategy, unveiled in October 1999, cen- fees for providing drug-testing services to USOPC,
57“Olympic Charter,” International Olympic Committee (Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, October 2021).

58

Pub. L. 101-647.

59 Testimony of Barry McCaffrey, Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy,” U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee, October 20, 1999.
60 Dionne Koller, “Does the Constitution Apply to the Actions of the United States Anti-Doping Agency?” Saint Louis University Law Journal 50 (2005): 91-136.
61

Ibid.

62

Ibid.

63

Pub. L. 107-67.

34

Historical Background

NGBs, PSOs, and other sports organizations.64
In parallel with its domestic efforts, ONDCP worked
with international stakeholders in the Olympic andParalympic movement to facilitate the multinational Lausanne Declaration pledging the launch of a
global anti-doping regulatory body independent of
the IOC and the IPC. The result was the creation of
the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999.
Because of its involvement from the start, the U.S.
government has been able to play a leading role
guiding WADA’s development and the creation of
its World Anti-Doping Code.65 In the United States,
USADA ensures compliance with WADA’s World
Anti-Doping Code in movement sports.
In addition to conducting drug testing, USADA
also supports scientific research to ensure that
testing keeps pace with the development of new
performance-enhancing substances and practices.
Toward that end, USADA awarded more than $1.8
million in 2021 through its Partnership for Clean
Competition funding.66 Furthermore, the agency
conducts trainings on clean competition for athletes and coaches.

Sanctions by USADA range from a short-termsuspension to a lifetime ban on competition. An
athlete wishing to dispute the results of a test ora sanctions ruling can request a hearing before an
independent arbitrator and has a right to have hisor her case heard within two months. For thoserequiring medications or medical treatments that
could interfere with a test result, USADA provides
limited “Therapeutic-Use Exemptions” (TUE) for
athletes on an individual basis, with a clear andpublicly transparent process for obtaining a TUE,
including in an emergency situation. Since USADA’s creation, more than 40,000 U.S. athletes havebeen tested and 770 U.S. and foreign athletes andothers participating in USOPC-overseen events
have been sanctioned for failed tests.68
CHANGES TO THE USOPC BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, 2003-2020

In 2003, following investigations by the Senate Commerce Committee of USOPC leadership and allegations of mismanagement—and the resignation of
USOPC CEO Lloyd Ward after just sixteen months
amid concerns over ethics-code violations— USOPC
As part of USADA’s operations, athletes competing revisited the size and structure of its Board of Direcat the high-performance level in movement sports tors.69 70 Having adopted changes based on the 1989
are routinely tested for hundreds of drugs on WA- Olympic Overview Commission led by George SteinDA’s list of banned substances as well as evidence brenner, USOPC’s board had cut its membership toof blood doping. These athletes must abide by WA- 101 directors71 before growing it by a quarter again in
DA’s “Whereabouts Rule,” which requires them to the 1990s. Accepting a recommendation by Sens. John
notify USADA where they can be found for the McCain, Ted Stevens, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
purposes of drug testing at any time. In 2021, more USOPC established an internal independent commisthan 97% of U.S. athletes subject to this rule were sion to review governance practices and make recomin compliance, and USADA conducted more than mendations for reforms. This three-member commis6,400 tests for athletes outside of a competition set- sion consisted of Donald Fehr, then-Executive Director
ting that year. More than 1,700 were also tested in of the Major League Baseball Players’ Association; Rocompetition.67
berta Cooper Ramo, former President of the American
64

USADA 2021 Annual Report. Colorado Springs, CO: U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, 2022.

65

Koller, “Does the Constitution Apply to the Actions of the United States Anti-Doping Agency?” 91-136.

66

USADA 2021 Annual Report. Colorado Springs, CO: U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, 2022.

67

Ibid.

68 Information provided directly to the Commission by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency; these figures include some athlete-support personnel, and twenty-three of the sanctioned individuals were considered “no-fault” instances, in which a prohibited substance was determined
to have entered the subject’s body through no fault or negligence, even though a sanction was still required or issued per U.S. Anti-Doping
Agency rules.
69

Richard Sandomir, “Independent Panel Named to Review U.S.O.C.’s Crisis,” The New York Times, February 28, 2003.

70

Amy Shipley, “Embattled CEO Ward Leaves USOC, The Washington Post, March 2, 2003.

71

Janofsky, “U.S.O.C. Aims at More Efficiency and Profitability.”

Historical Background35

Bar Association; and Dick Ebersol, then-Chairman of
NBC Sports.72 Their recommendation to reduce thesize of USOPC’s board even further from 125 to justeleven directors was adopted later that year.

members of the IOC, the one American memberof the IPC, three NGB Council representatives,
three representatives from the AAC (now called
the Team USA Athletes’ Commission), five independent directors, and two independent athleteYet another internal commission was set up by USOPC at-large directors. While the athlete-at-large direcjust six years later to address problems with that new tors are chosen by the board in the same way thatsystem. After losing a bid to host the 2016 games, independent directors are selected, the three AAC
divisions among governing bodies and movement representatives are directly elected by athletes who
stakeholders’ lack of confidence in USOPC’s truncat- qualify under the ten-year rule, as was required by
ed board,73 and the departure of the acting CEO after the 1998 amendment to the Ted Stevens Olympic
a no-confidence vote by the governing-body leaders,74 and Amateur Sports Act.79
USOPC asked former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue to oversee a further review of board structure OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC LICENSING
and governance practices.75 The result of that review AND BROADCASTS
was the addition in 2010 of four more directors to
USOPC’s board, including one each representing the Much of the current model for Olympic andNational Governing Bodies Council (NGB Council) Paralympic sponsorship and broadcast licensing
and the AAC, bringing the total to fifteen.76 In De- emerged following the successes of the 1984 Los
cember 2020, additional director positions were add- Angeles summer games. Under the direction of Peed to provide for the NGB Council and AAC each to ter Ueberroth, then-Chairman of the Los Angeles
Olympic Organizing Committee, those games harhold three voting seats.77
nessed the power of the Olympic trademarks (theThe NGB Council and AAC are two of the three “con- Paralympic games that year were not held in Los
stituent councils” recognized by USOPC as integral Angeles) unlike any previous. Broadcasting rights
to its leadership of the U.S. Olympic and Paralym- for those games were secured by ABC for $225 milpic movement. The third is USOPC’s Affiliate Orga- lion; nearly thirty private companies like American
nization Council, which consists of representatives Express, McDonalds, and United Airlines togethof its thirty-five affiliate community-based, military, er paid millions more for official sponsorships. To
adaptive, educational, and multi-sport organizations date, the 1984 Los Angeles games are lauded as not
as well as organizations governing non-Olympic or only a success for the movement—in spite of the
Paralympic sports in the United States. The Affiliate Soviet boycott—but also as an exemplar that turned
Organization Council has no direct representation on a profit of more than $250 million.
USOPC’s board.78
In 2014, the IOC, which holds the global monopoly
Currently, the sixteen members of the USOPC over broadcast rights to the Olympic games, signed
Board of Directors include the two American an eleven-year extension with NBC Sports to its ex72

Sandomir, “Independent Panel Named to Review U.S.O.C.’s Crisis.”73 Katie Thomas, Richard Sandomir, and Juliet Macur, “Critics Assail U.S.O.C. After Chicago’s Loss,” The New York Times, October 3,
2009.
74

Katie Thomas and Juliet Macur, “U.S.O.C.’s Embattled Chief Says She’ll Step Down,” The New York Times, October 7, 2009.

75 Katie Thomas, “Paul Tagliabue, Former N.F.L. Commissioner, Selected to Lead U.S.O.C. Panel,” The New York Times, November 12,
2009.
76

Associated Press, “USOC seeks to expand board,” ESPN, July 13, 2010.

77

Matthew De George, “Donna de Varona, John Naber Join Expanded USOPC Board,” Swimming World Magazine, December 21, 2020.

78 “Affiliate Organizations Council,” U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, accessed October 7, 2023, https://www.usopc.org/about/leadership/affiliate-organizations-council.
79 “U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee Leadership,” U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, accessed October 7, 2023, https://www.usopc.org/about-the-usopc/leadership.

36

Historical Backgroundisting deal providing exclusive rights to show thegames in the U.S. domestic television and streaming market through 2032. NBC Sports paid the IOC$7.75 billion for the privilege, which covers three
winter and three summer games.80 That same year,
the revenues from NBC Sports’s coverage of the2014 Sochi winter games represented nearly twothirds of the global broadcast revenues earned by
the IOC from those games.81 The extension deal
emerged after a no-bid process, in which the IOC
approached NBC Sports to negotiate the right tocontinue its exclusive U.S. coverage,82 which had
been the case since the contract signed in 1985 tobroadcast the 1988 summer games in Seoul, after
it won a competitive bid of $300 million against
ABC’s $250 million.83 Ever since, NBC Sports has
continued to secure U.S. rights, which produce thelion’s share of the IOC’s overall revenues globally.

and the 2022 Beijing winter games.85 Prior to thosegames, NBC Sports instead limited its Paralympic
coverage to one-hour daily highlight broadcasts
and a longer recap after the games had concluded,
not during primetime viewing hours. In total, NBC
Sports committed to sixty and a half hours of total coverage for the London 2012 Paralympics, sixty-six hours for the Rio de Janeiro summer games
in 2016, and just fifty hours of the winter games inSochi in between.86

In contrast, Channel 4 in the UK, which held exclusive broadcast rights from the IPC in the 2012
host nation, provided viewers with 500 hours of
Paralympic coverage, with nearly half the UK population tuning in to watch. That commitment to covering the Paralympic for the domestic UK market
continued in 2016 with summer-game broadcasts
reaching 700 hours. Moreover, Channel 4’s coverUnder an agreement between USOPC and the age included live commentary and recaps hosted by
IOC signed in 1996, the former received 20% of all on-air presenters with disabilities.87 Nine-time U.S.
Olympic sponsorship revenues globally as well as Paralympian Candace Cable told our Commission
12.75% of the revenues generated from U.S. broad- during its public hearing:
cast rights. A dispute ensued, however, in the earlyyears of the twenty-first century as the IOC sought
London 2012 created a visceral paradigm shift.
to renegotiate a lower percentage for USOPC. In
You actually could taste it in the air. ThereMay 2012, that disagreement was resolved when
were more people that attended the ParalymUSOPC CEO Scott Blackmun signed a deal with
pic Games than the Olympic Games in Lonthe IOC to maintain the 20% rate for sponsorships
don. That was almost unheard of. …They
but accept a reduction in broadcast revenues to
had television shows, they had late-night talk
7% on any increases from 2020-2040, among othershows. They had a late-night talk show calledchanges.84“The Last Leg” that was hosted by a single-leg
amputee, and it was hilarious. It still continues to today, it’s so popular.
Concurrent with its exclusive contracts to broadcast
Olympic coverage in the United States, NBC Sports
also acquired rights from the IPC for the Paralym- NBC Sports aired 1,000 hours of coverage for the
pic games. However, NBC Sports declined to offer Tokyo 2020 Paralympic summer games, which inviewers primetime coverage of Paralympic events cluded both television and streaming. In August
until the rescheduled 2020 Tokyo summer games 2023, NBC Sports announced that it would expand
80

Nancy Armour, “NBC Universal pays $7.75 billion for Olympics through 2032,” USA Today, May 7, 2014.

81

Brian Fung, “NBC single-handedly pays for a fifth of all Olympic games,” The Washington Post, February 10, 2014.

82

Armour, “NBC Universal pays $7.75 billion for Olympics through 2032.”

83

Sally Bedell Smith, “NBC Wins TV Rights for Olympics,” The New York Times, October 4, 1985.

84

Tom Degun, “IOC agree revenue-sharing deal with USOC,” Inside the Games, May 24, 2012.

85

Scooby Axson, “NBC will air Paralympic Winter Games in primetime for first time,” USA Today, January 28, 2022.

86 Nick Zaccardi, “NBC Olympics, U.S. Olympic Committee acquire media rights to Paralympics in 2014, 2016,” NBC Sports, September
24, 2013.
87“Report reveals Channel 4 revolutionising disability broadcast landscape,” International Paralympic Committee, September 11, 2020.

Historical Background37

its Paralympic coverage to 1,500 hours for the Paris 2028 summer games, Salt Lake City’s bid planners
2024 summer games. Six of those hours are sched- shifted focus to 2034, and IOC and IPC officials anuled for primetime television.88
nounced in November 2023 that the city would beconsidered the preferred candidate.
U.S. BIDS TO HOST THE OLYMPIC ANDSEXUAL-ABUSE CRISES AND CREATIONPARALYMPIC GAMESOF THE U.S. CENTER FOR SAFESPORT
Following the successful 1996 summer and 2002
winter games, several attempts were made to bring Congress next took action implementing structurthe Olympics and Paralympics back to the United al reforms within the U.S. Olympic and ParalymStates before they were awarded to Los Angeles for pic movement in 2017 after revelations in the mid2028. Between 2000-2005, New York City sought 2010s of widespread sexual abuse in certain sports
to host the 2012 summer games, and it was select- as well as the disturbing and failed response by
ed by USOPC to be the official U.S. bid city. It was NGBs, PSOs, and USOPC. The most publicly viseliminated, however, in the second round of voting ible and wrenching scandals, perhaps, were thoseby the IOC. In 2007, USOPC chose Chicago over involving U.S.A. Swimming and U.S.A. Gymnastics.
Houston, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia to submit Not only did they initiate a process of soul-searchto the IOC and IPC for the 2016 games. In 2009, ing within the Olympic and Paralympic movement
once again American hopes were frustrated when with regard to the safety of athletes, coaches, andthe IOC selected Rio de Janeiro over Chicago and staff. They also launched a national conversation
about the role of government in protecting moveother finalists.
ment-sports participants through more effective
After the dispute between USOPC and the IOC oversight of safety precautions at every level.
over broadcast licensing revenues was resolved in2012, the outlook for U.S. bids grew more favorable. In 2010, an ABC News investigation revealed thatIndeed, several cities put forward bids for the 2024 coaches with U.S.A. Swimming had been sexusummer games, including Boston, Los Angeles, San ally assaulting multiple minors and secretly phoFrancisco, and Washington, D.C. In January 2015, tographing and recording them in high-school
USOPC selected Boston as the official U.S. bid for locker rooms and showers. U.S.A. Swimming instithose games. However, by that July, the Boston or- tuted lifetime bans for thirty-six coaches as a result.
ganizers withdrew their city’s bid as a result of poor Among those it had banned was a coach who had
public support. Instead, USOPC worked with offi- been cleared through internal background checks
cials from Los Angeles to revive that city’s 2024 bid even though he had a history of abusing teenaged
and advance it to the IOC and IPC. With only Los swimmers.89 Moreover, U.S.A. Swimming kept
Angeles and Paris, France, in the running, the IOC confidential the names of those coaches who had
and IPC decided to select one for 2024 and the oth- been sanctioned, making it easy for them to go outer for 2028; Los Angeles was ultimately chosen for side the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement
the latter date. More recently, Denver, Reno-Tahoe, to continue their abuse.90 Even as late as 2017, alleand Salt Lake City submitted bids to USOPC for gations of child sexual assault by coaches were routhe 2030 winter games. After Reno-Tahoe with- tinely ignored by U.S.A. Swimming officials, withdrew, USOPC selected Salt Lake City over Denver bans against individuals imposed only once theyin 2018 to advance to consideration by the IOC and had been convicted in court, sometimes years afthe IPC. However, with Los Angeles set to host the ter the abuse was first reported to the NGB. In to88

“NBC Universal to air record Paralympic coverage from Paris, daily live shows,” NBC Sports, August 29, 2023.

89 Megan Chuchmach and Avni Patel, “ABC News Investigation: USA Swimming Coaches Molested, Secretly Taped Dozens of Teen Swimmers,” ABC News, April 8, 2010.
90 “Nassar and Beyond: A Review of the Olympic Community’s Efforts to Protect Athletes from Sexual Abuse,” U.S. House Committee on
Energy and Commerce (Majority Staff), December 20, 2018.

38

Historical Backgroundtal, between the period from 1997-2017, as manyas 590 youth swimmers under age eighteen wereabused by more than 250 coaches and officials from
U.S.A. Swimming.91
In 2016, the movement confronted another egregious case, that of Larry Nassar, who was indicted
the following year for the rape and sexual assaultof hundreds of young women and minor girls overa twenty-four-year period between 1992-2016. According to USOPC’s own independent investigation, Nassar may have sexually abused more than
400 victims, many of them repeatedly, over histhirty-year career as the team doctor and national
medical coordinator for the U.S. national women’s
gymnastics team.92 According to that investigation’s report:
He abused famous Olympians in hotel rooms
across the globe; elementary-school-aged gymnasts in local Michigan gyms and in the basement of his family’s home; athletes from [Michigan State University] in his clinic’s office; andthe daughter of his family friends, startingwhen she was six years old.93
Nassar carried out his crimes with impunity, including at the U.S.A. Gymnastics training facility
in Texas.94 When courageous victims finally cameforward in 2015 and reported his abuse to law enforcement, their actions came amid broader revelations that U.S.A. Gymnastics had ignored evidence for years of abuse by coaches on its staff andhad delayed contacting law enforcement to reportcrimes.95

Other sports faced a reckoning about their handling of abuse as well. In 2017, former athletes sued
USOPC and U.S.A. Taekwondo for covering up
abuses, and it was revealed that the NGB had placed
an athlete and coach under investigation for sexual misconduct for two years without ever holding ahearing on their cases and then permitted the pair
to travel to the Rio de Janeiro 2012 Olympics together with the rest of the team.96 Furthermore, inFebruary 2017, a six-time national champion cyclist
publicly revealed that she had endured sexual abuseand emotional misconduct at U.S.A. Cycling earlier
in her career.97 U.S.A. Speedskating had experienced
a sexual-abuse scandal in 2013, in which it settled aclaim with athletes who had come forward to reporta former head coach.98 An exposé in 2017 revealed
that U.S.A. Volleyball had banned a coach in 1995
for child sexual abuse but reinstated him just five
years later, allowing him to coach more than 20,000
additional minor girls until he would eventually bebanned again only in January 2018.99
In the fallout from the U.S.A. Gymnastics scandal, itspresident resigned in 2017, and the USOPC threatened to decertify its NGB status in January 2018 unless its entire board departed as well, which it did by
the end of the month. That February, Mr. Blackmun
left his position as USOPC’s CEO. By the end of 2018,
U.S. Gymnastics, facing a multitude of civil lawsuits
from abuse victims, declared bankruptcy. Two U.S.A.
Swimming executives, including the senior director
in charge of athlete safety, resigned shortly after the
NGB’s failures to address widespread abuse became
public. The executive director of U.S.A. Taekwondo
also stepped down. In explaining how the governance structure of Olympic and Paralympic sports

91 Scott Reid, “100s of USA swimmers were sexually abused for decades and the people in charge knew and ignored it, investigation finds,”
The Orange County Register, February 16, 2018.
92 Joan McPhee and James Dowden, “Report of the Independent Investigation: The Constellation of Factors Underlying Larry Nassar’s
Abuse of Athletes,” Ropes & Gray LLP, December 10, 2018.
93

Ibid.

94 “Examining the Olympic Community’s Ability to Protect Athletes from Sexual Abuse,” Hearing Transcript, Subcommittee on Oversightand Investigations, U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, May 23, 2018.
95“Nassar and Beyond,” U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

96 Nancy Armour and Rachel Axon, “Executive director out at USA Taekwondo after handling of misconduct cases,” USA Today, September 5, 2017.
97

Caitlin Giddings, “USA Cycling Opens Investigation into Missy Erickson’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse,” Bicycling.com, February 17, 2017.

98

Kelly Whiteside, “USOC Group Looks at Enforcement in Misconduct Cases,” USA Today, July 29, 2013.

99 Jon Seidel and Michael O’Brien, “Net Pains: Volleyball Coach Rick Butler, His Players—and the Damage That’s Been Done,” Chicago SunTimes, November 24, 2017.

Historical Backgroundfacilitated this type of rampant abuse and the lackof seriousness with which sports officials treated theabuse epidemic, law professor Amanda Peters writes:
The International Olympic Committee (IOC)sits at the top of the pyramid, overseeing 206
national Olympic committees. Next to the
top are the national committees like America’s USOPC, then NGBs, then individual
sports clubs, then coaches, trainers, and staff,
then amateur athletes. This tiered approachis problematic when it comes to determining who is responsible for athlete safety. The
Olympic structure has allowed the IOC,USOPC, and even NGBs to deny responsibility for abuse. All tiers have deflected theblame further up or down the pyramid andhave ignored the problem of abuse. NGBs
looked to the USOPC to develop policies toprotect athletes, but the USOPC did nothing.
Meanwhile, the USOPC tried to lay the burden for creating policies and policing abuseon the NGBs, which in turn deferred to local
clubs. When an athlete alleged abuse at a
gym or club, the higher tiers’ defense was thatthe clubs are self-regulated, they hire theirown coaches and personnel, and set theirown rules, so the USOPC and NGB were notliable. When each tier asserts that protection from abuse is another tier’s responsibility, no one takes responsibility and coaches
are more likely to abuse their athletes.100

39

tion Committee hearing on “Protecting the Healthand Safety of American Athletes.”
The result of these hearings and the increased public attention to the issue of athlete safety from abuse
was an acknowledgement by Congress that USOPC
alone could not solve the problem. Though USOPC
had established its own safety policies in 2012 andlaunched what it called the U.S. Center for Safe Sport(SafeSport) not long after, little had been achieved tofund that body or provide it with the independence
required to carry out the mission for which it wassorely needed. Indeed, SafeSport’s initial creation
was considered more window-dressing than problem-solving, and when Mr. Blackmun initially led
internal discussions on addressing safety issues, hesought to balance meeting safety needs against placing too much financial burden on NGBs and PSOs.101“For years”, Peters notes, “there was an unwillingness
to open an investigative center that operated independently of the USOPC or NGBs because neitherorganization wanted to cede the control it had. …
The USOPC and NGBs refused to create a reporting
process, track abuse, or conduct auditing of any kind.
They were willfully ignorant.”102

Concurrent to Congress’s hearings, Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein and Chairman Chuck Grassleyof the Senate Judiciary Committee introduced thebipartisan Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act, and Senate Commerce, Science, andTransportation Committee Chairman John Thuneand Ranking Member Bill Nelson introduced theMore important in terms of its impact on the struc- Safe Sport Act. Together, these were combined into
ture of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse
than individuals’ departures from USOPC and gov- and Safe Sport Act of 2017. Congress subsequently
erning-body leadership, however, was Congress’s enacted their legislation, which was signed into law
growing recognition of this systemic failure and on February 14, 2018.103
the need for improved safety precautions for athletes and greater accountability for USOPC, NGBs, That legislation amended the Ted Stevens Olympic
and PSOs. On March 28, 2017, the Senate Judicia- and Amateur Sports Act to make SafeSport nomiry Committee held a hearing on “Protecting Young nally independent of USOPC and grant it exclusive
Athletes from Sexual Abuse.” It was followed on May jurisdiction to investigate claims of sexual miscon17 by a Senate Commerce, Science, and Transporta- duct in movement sports as well as ban, temporarily
100

Amanda Peters, “When Coaching Becomes Criminal,” University of New Hampshire Law Review 20, no. 1 (December 2021): 2-13.

101“USOC Wary of Funding for Unit Investigating Abuse,” Associated Press, September 29, 2014.

102

Peters, “When Coaching Becomes Criminal,” 30-31.

103

Pub. L. 115-126.

40

Historical Backgroundor permanently, sanctioned individuals from participation. Though operating outside the control of
USOPC, SafeSport would receive its funding almost
entirely through USOPC grants. The remainder
would come from other grants and from fee-for-service programs.

4) Misconduct Relating to Aiding and Abetting,
Abuse of Process, or Retaliation, when it relates
to the Center’s process;5) Other Inappropriate Conduct, as defined
herein.104

SafeSport, in short, was established to improve ac- Additionally, SafeSport holds discretionary juriscountability, reduce the time needed to resolve al- diction when the subject of a claim is alleged tolegations of abuse, promote a greater sense of safety have engaged in the following activities:
among participants in movement sports, and ensurethat those with a history of abuse can no longer threatNon-sexual Child Abuse;en others in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement. Each NGB and PSO also maintains its own inEmotional and physical misconduct, including
dividual safe-sport program or officer, through whichstalking, bullying behaviors, hazing, and haSafeSport standards and policies are promoted, safety
rassment;
trainings are provided, and sanctions are enforced.
Criminal Charges or Dispositions not involvSafeSport’s main function is to adjudicate claims subing Child Abuse or Sexual Misconduct;
mitted by athletes, coaches, staff, volunteers or anyone else operating within the USOPC, NGB, and PSO
Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policy or othframework, particularly those with access to minors.
er similar Proactive Policy violations;
The fifty-two-page SafeSport Code lays out its statutory jurisdiction and outlines its claims process. AcMisconduct Related to Aiding and Abetting,cording to the Code:
Abuse of Process, or Retaliation, when it relates to the process of the USOPC, an NGB, an
The Center has the exclusive jurisdiction to invesLAO,105 or any other organization under thetigate and resolve allegations that a ParticipantCenter’s jurisdiction.106
engaged in one or more of the following:
The Code stipulates that each of these ten catego1) Sexual Misconduct, including without limitaries constitutes “Prohibited Conduct” as a result oftion child sexual abuse and any misconduct thatwhich “the privilege of participation in the Olympic
is reasonably related to the underlying allegation
and Paralympic Movement may be limited, condiof Sexual Misconduct;tioned, suspended, terminated, or denied” by SafeSport.107 Anyone listed on a sex-offender registry is2) Criminal Charges or Dispositions involving
automatically ineligible. The recording or sharingof images or video of a sexual or private natureChild Abuse or Sexual Misconduct;(including online) without consent of all parties is3) Misconduct Related to Reporting, where thestrictly prohibited. The Code explicitly includes aunderlying allegation involves Child Abuse or
ban against stalking, bullying, verbal assault, other forms of physical and emotional misconduct, for
Sexual Misconduct;
104 “SafeSport Code for the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement, Effective April 1, 2023,” U.S. Center for SafeSport, accessed May 8,2023, https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/2023_SafeSportCode.pdf.
105 Local Affiliate Organization; USOPC’s bylaws make certain sports organizations eligible for affiliate status as long as they qualify under
one of five categories: 1) community-based multisport; 2) education-based multisport; 3) Armed Forces; 4) recognized sport; or 5) take somepart in administering or organizing major sporting events in the United States. Examples of affiliate organizations include U.S.A. Football(which is not internationally governed for the purposes of Olympic competition), the NCAA, and community organizations such as the Boysand Girls Clubs of America, Special Olympics, and the U.S.A. Deaf Sports Federation.
106“SafeSport Code,” U.S. Center for SafeSport.

107

Ibid.

Historical Background

41

SafeSport, in short, was established to improve accountability, reduce the time needed
to resolve allegations of abuse, promote a greater sense of safety among participants inmovement sports, and ensure that those with a history of abuse can no longer threaten
others in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement.
which a victim may file a claim with SafeSport. Furthermore, it forbids adult participants from engaging in a consensual romantic or intimate relationship where there is a power imbalance. Failure toreport child abuse or sexual misconduct to SafeSport (excepting self-reporting by victims) is a violation of the Code as well, and the Code details consequences for filing false claims, abusing the claims
process, or retaliating against claimants.108
Under statutory requirements, those making aclaim of child abuse or child sexual abuse must
report it to law enforcement in addition to filinga claim with SafeSport. Knowledge of other prohibited conduct under the Code, such as bullying,stalking, and other forms of physical and emotional
abuse, are to be reported either to SafeSport or to
one’s affiliated organization (USOPC, NGB, PSO,
or local affiliate organization). Claims may be madeanonymously, and SafeSport promises claimants
that their identities will remain confidential unlessnecessary to investigate or resolve a claim. SafeSport does not contact law enforcement on behalf ofa claimant, instead directing those making claims
to report criminal activity to law enforcement concurrent to filing a SafeSport claim. Claims are valid
even if prohibited conduct occurred before the creation of SafeSport and the publication of the Code;there is no statute of limitations.109
The Code specifies SafeSport’s process for adjudicating claims. When an allegation is made, SafeSport notifies USOPC or the relevant NGB, PSO, or
local affiliate. After a preliminary inquiry, SafeSport officials determine whether an investigation is
warranted. The burden of evidence gathering is on
SafeSport, not a claimant, and a “preponderance of
108

Ibid.

109

Ibid.

110

Ibid.

111

Ibid.

the evidence” is required to reach a determination.
A dismissal of charges in a criminal proceeding is
not considered sufficient reason to dismiss allegations under review by SafeSport. In cases where
criminal laws may have been violated, SafeSport
coordinates with law enforcement and provides evidence and other relevant information to criminal
investigators.110
Once a claim is made, SafeSport seeks to reach aresolution either by administratively closing cases
deemed to have insufficient evidence to investigate,by facilitating an informal resolution satisfactory
to the claimant and the subject of the claim, or byreaching a formal resolution following an investigation and a decision. Under its Code, SafeSport
strives to respect the privacy and anonymity ofboth claimants and those under investigation. All
parties are guaranteed a right to consult with advisors of their choosing, including those providing
legal representation, as long as an advisor is not affiliated with USOPC, an NGB, a PSO, a local affiliate organization, or SafeSport. Witness testimony
is allowed from anyone who participates within the
U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement. SafeSport
may notify the parent or guardian of a claimant if
officials believe it necessary to protect the claimant’s health or safety. It may also impose temporary
sanctions, including suspensions or the required
use of chaperones when interacting with minors,
on those under investigation—even if the arbitration process has not yet begun.111
Those who are the subjects of SafeSport claims also
have certain rights under the Code. In addition
to the right to representation and written notices,
they are guaranteed an opportunity to be heard by42

Historical Background

SafeSport investigators. The Code promises decisions made in writing with a reasoned explanation,and subjects have the right to challenge any temporary sanctions through arbitration. Once a decision

service basis. However, the private grassroots- andyouth-sports clubs and leagues that operate outsideof USOPC, NGBs, or PSOs are required neither toparticipate in SafeSport’s trainings nor abide by its
standards. These private organizations, which
now form a major segment of the youth-sports
Congress’s grant of statutory authorities tolandscape in our country, are also not obligatSafeSport represented a significant step
ed to participate in its Centralized Disciplinary
toward greater public oversight of safety in
Database by reporting claims of misconduct or
the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement.
checking potential employees or volunteers forinclusion in the database.
has been made by SafeSport officials, following an
investigation, the subject of that decision has ten SafeSport is also required by law to conduct regudays to request a hearing with a neutral arbitrator. lar and random safety audits of USOPC, NGBs, andSanctions imposed by SafeSport can range from PSOs, with at least one audit per year per organionly a written warning to permanent ineligibility to zation. Each is evaluated on the basis of whether
participate in any movement-sports program.112
its participants have completed required trainings
and whether certain standard safety practices have
One of the most significant reforms was also the launch been implemented. Where corrective actions areof SafeSport’s publicly accessible and searchable da- required they are noted, and the organizations aretabase of individuals sanctioned for misconduct, the provided an opportunity to address shortcomings.
Centralized Disciplinary Database. This made it pos- Audit reports made after 2021 have been publishedsible for the first time for parents or guardians, ath- online for public transparency.113
letes, coaches, and concerned participants in private
leagues and clubs outside the Olympic and Paralym- Congress’s grant of statutory authorities to SafeSpic movement—as well as those engaged in school port represented a significant step toward greaterand collegiate athletics—to find a list of banned in- public oversight of safety in the U.S. Olympic anddividuals all in one place online. This was intended to Paralympic movement. At around the same time,
make it harder for perpetrators of abuse to move with in December 2019, USOPC began requiring that
impunity from one league, club, or training facility to criminal background checks be conducted on all
the next and continue their misconduct.
adult participants in the movement meeting certain criteria, including all who interact with minors.
In addition to its claim-investigation and resolution The checks are conducted through the National
process, SafeSport works proactively to promote safe- Center for Safety Initiatives and are engaged uponty through education and training programs across the commencement of a role or responsibility or at
the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement. Adults least every two years for covered individuals. The
who are in regular contact with minors are required background checks include SafeSport disciplinary
by USOPC, NGBs, and PSOs to complete SafeSport’s records as well as public sex-offender registries.114
annual ninety-minute training course online. Parents
or guardians of athletes and—with their parents’ or THE ROPES & GRAY LLP REPORT
guardians’ consent—athletes below age eighteen are
also offered SafeSport training on how to recognize Even while Congress was developing and enacting
and report child abuse. SafeSport also offers its train- the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuseing courses to private sports organizations outside the and Safe Sport Act, it was clear both inside and outframework of USOPC, NGBs, and PSOs on a fee-for- side the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement
112

Ibid.

113

To access Audit Reports since 2021, visit https://uscenterforsafesport.org/audit-reports-3/.

114“Responsible Sport Organization Background Check Policy,” U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, December 13, 2019.

Historical Backgroundthat additional, broader reforms would be needed.
USOPC entered a period of long-overdue introspection, and Congress continued to pursue additional fact-finding and prepare further legislation.

43

malized complaint processes, lack of sufficienttraining for employees handling sexual abusematters, and inadequate attention to the riskof retaliation against athletes and others forraising complaints.119

In early 2018, the USOPC Board of Directors hired
the law firm Ropes & Gray LLP to carry out an inde- • U.S.A. Gymnastics erected numerous procedural obstacles in the complaint resolution
pendent investigation into the failings that allowed
Nassar to engage in his crimes for so long while emprocess that kept U.S.A. Gymnastics from efployed by U.S.A. Gymnastics. Led by two former
fectively addressing serious, credible allegafederal prosecutors, the Ropes & Gray LLP investitions of child sexual abuse.120
gation included interviews with current and former
U.S.A. Gymnastics and USOPC employees, a review • These obstacles included requiring a complaintof more than a million documents, and analysis of
to come from a survivor or survivor’s parent;
the transcripts from Nassar’s criminal proceedings,
refusing to investigate complaints where theand it focused on identifying structural reforms
reporting party wished to remain anonymous
needed within USOPC and the NGB.115 Ropes &to the perpetrator; refusing to investigate
Gray LLP presented USOPC and U.S.A. Gymnascomplaints where the reporting party did nottics with its report that December, the authors statsubmit a signed, written complaint; limiting
ing that “although neither organization purposefully
available sanctions if the alleged conduct wassought to harm athletes, both adopted general govnot “criminal” in nature; failing to follow up on
ernance structures and specific policies concerningcomplaints of misconduct; and losing track ofsexual abuse that had the effect of allowing abuse toimportant information about accused coachoccur and continue without effective intervention.”116
es.121Among the Ropes & Gray LLP report’s main findings: • U.S.A. Gymnastics’s lack of oversight allowed
Nassar to consolidate and entrench his position within a larger structural environment• The [USOPC]’s evolution toward a more tradithat lacked effective athlete-protection policies
tional corporate structure corresponded withan increased focus on generating revenue andand practices and operated to discourage reporting of misconduct.122
athlete success and a diminishing voice for117
athletes in governance.
In short, the Ropes & Gray LLP report pointed to• The [USOPC] did not view itself as a youth-orithree key areas where USOPC and the governing
ented organization and was delayed in recogbodies had fallen short: 1) athlete representation; 2)nizing the need to adopt global child-protecthe implementation of effective safety procedurestive measures.118
to protect athletes, particularly minors; and 3) an
attitude among USOPC and governing-body lead• Patterns of inadequate policies and practices
ers that their primary responsibility was to foster
emerged across the NGBs, including overly formedal accrual in international competition instead
115

McPhee and Dowden, “Report of the Independent Investigation.”

116

Ibid., 4.

117

Ibid., 142.

118

Ibid., 139.

119

Ibid.

120

Ibid., 167.

121

Ibid.

122

Ibid.

44

Historical Backgroundof promoting safety and access in the coordinationand development of movement sports at all levels.
The Ropes & Gray LLP report also cited a long-simmering disagreement among USOPC officials as tothe organization’s responsibility toward governing
bodies and its role in supervising their actions forpurposes of accountability. The authors noted: “Onecontributing factor to this debate is the vaguenessof the Ted Stevens [Olympic and Amateur Sports]
Act.”123 A lack of specifics and clarity with regard to
the USOPC’s mandate to “establish national goals
for amateur athletic activities”124 and “to coordinate
and develop amateur athletic activities in the United States,”125 they observed, led USOPC to adopt a“service-approach toward the NGBs that involved
providing resources without accompanying oversight.”126 The weaknesses from having an amateur
regulator had contributed directly to an environment where abusers like Nassar could commit theircrimes and where USOPC officials could willfully
ignore problems that could be seen as a distraction
from their goal of maximizing medals and revenue.

The [USOPC] and NGBs play a role in keeping
millions of American athletes safe from harm.
The vast majority of the athletes involved in
NGBs will never compete in the Olympics.
They’re on teams affiliated with an NGB, orplay in NGB-sponsored events. This can include little league teams, local tennis tournaments or gymnastics competitions. They are,in many instances, children. But they still fallwithin the parameters of “organized sport.” So
when we talk about athlete safety, we aren’t
just talking about elite athletes representing
their country at the highest levels of their competition. We are also talking about our friends,
our neighbors, our kids.127
Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette
was also unabashed in expressing the concerns she
and others in Congress were still having about safety even after enacting the legislation in 2017 that
authorized SafeSport:

CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS,HEARINGS, & REPORTS FROM 2017-2020
Meanwhile, as the Ropes & Gray LLP report was being
prepared, Congress itself began a process of looking
into systemic failings in the governance of grassroots
sports. The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearingon May 23, 2018, and summoned the acting CEO of
USOPC to testify, along with the President and CEOof U.S.A. Gymnastics, the President and CEO of U.S.A.
Swimming, the CEO of U.S.A. Volleyball, the Executive Director for U.S.A. Taekwondo, and the President and CEO of SafeSport. Subcommittee Chairman
Gregg Harper, in his opening statement, reminded allof them why Congress has a vested interest in holding
USOPC, NGBs, PSOs, and SafeSport accountable for
ensuring safety in movement sports. He stated:
123

Ibid., 150.

124

36 U.S.C., Sec. 220503 (1).

…I still have considerable concerns about
whether SafeSport has sufficient tools andresources and operates with enough independence from the organizations it oversees. I
want to know that there are formal ongoing assessments of SafeSport’s needs and operations
to ensure that it can handle its workload effectively. The Olympic Committee is not operating on a shoestring. Its annual revenue is in thehundreds of millions. I hope we will hear todaythat if SafeSport needs more money, the U.S.
Olympic Committee and governing bodies areprepared to increase substantially the support
they provide to the Center. Similarly, I would
like to know how the Center for SafeSport andnational governing bodies will ensure thatthe independent system they have designed isworking as intended and meeting the needs ofthose it is charged with protecting. …I hopethat we are on the road to real change. Today,

125 Ibid.
126

McPhee and Dowden, “Report of the Independent Investigation,” 149.

127 “Examining the Olympic Community’s Ability to Protect Athletes from Sexual Abuse,” Hearing Transcript, Subcommittee on Oversightand Investigations, U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, May 23, 2018.

Historical Background45

I want every witness here to convince me that
we are, and that the steps taken to date are notjust “window dressing.”128

ucation and training programs. “Athletes have informed me,” Xiao told the Subcommittee, “that insome sports, receiving a SafeSport ‘certification’ forcompletion of training is a mere formality that can
On July 24, 2018, the Senate Commerce, Science, be granted upon viewing a video or having someone
and Transportation Subcommittee on Consumer pick up their certificate for them.”Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data
Security held a similar hearing, entitled “Strength- Xiao also raised the related issue of a lack of repening and Empowering U.S. Amateur Athletes: resentation for athletes seeking to resolve disputes
Moving Forward with Solutions.” It addressed a with USOPC over safety and other concerns, suchwide range of challenges, including the efficacy of as right-to-compete (USOPC Bylaws Section Nine)
SafeSport, athletes’ rights and representation, and and governing-body non-compliance (USOPC ByUSOPC officials’ steps to address concerns. The laws Section Ten) cases. “Currently,” he explained,
main focus, however, continued to be athlete safe- “the AAC is the primary body actively advocating forty in the aftermath of the still-ongoing fallout from athletes’ rights. The AAC is structurally limited; it
can only effectively address policy and governance isthe sexual abuse crisis.
sues and has no authority beyond its ability to nomSenate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck inate representatives to various boards and serving
Grassley, one of the original sponsors of the 2017 as a communications channel.”130 A fully volunteer
legislation, joined the Subcommittee for the July 24 organization, it had been unable to access suffihearing. He noted the striking figure that SafeSport, cient resources to represent athletes effectively inin its first year alone, had “fielded over 1,200 mis- arbitration over disputes with USOPC, the NGBs,
conduct allegations and issued sanctions against or PSOs, which maintain full-time, professional
300 individuals.”129 According to information pro- staff. This has serious implications for athletes filvided by SafeSport to the House Energy and Com- ing claims of abuse, given the power imbalance bemerce Committee, in 2018 it had been asked to in- tween individual athletes and these organizations
vestigate allegations of sexual abuse from thirty-five and the deterrent factor of athletes being unable toout of the forty-eight governing bodies certified by secure affordable representation.
USOPC at that time.
According to a 2020 report by the Government
At the July 24 hearing, Han Xiao, then Chair of Accountability Office (GAO), SafeSport closed
the AAC and later a Co-Chair of this Commission, 4,150 claims between February 2018 and the end
warned that SafeSport “could still fail in its mission of 2020. Of those, 36% were closed administratively
to protect athletes. For example, SafeSport efforts by SafeSport without any formal decision.131 Of the
could be derailed by the stories we’re hearing sug- 2,460 cases closed by SafeSport in a one-year perigesting that the rights of the accused are not being od from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020, only 262 led
appropriately protected. In other cases,” he contin- to sanctions, including fifty-seven cases of permaued, “we hear that SafeSport complaints are being nent ineligibility being imposed.132
used by staff against athletes, as yet another way toexercise power over them.” Furthermore, he high- Meanwhile, concerns were rising that SafeSport’s
lighted the variable effectiveness of SafeSport’s ed- funding model limited both its independence as
128

Ibid.

129 “Opening Remarks by Sen. Chuck Grassley,” U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security, July 24, 2018.”
130 “Testimony of Han Xiao, Chair, Athletes Advisory Council,” U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on
Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security, July 24, 2018.
131 Kathryn Larin, “Amateur Athletes: The U.S. Center for SafeSport’s Response and Resolution Process for Reporting Abuse,” U.S. Government Accountability Office, December 18, 2020.
132

Ibid.

46

Historical Background

well as its effectiveness. USOPC provided SafeSport with only $3 million in funding for 2018 and$6 million for 2019. This left it “underfunded, understaffed, and ill equipped to investigate the thousands of abuse reports filed by athletes every year.”133
A former senior USOPC executive testified to Congress’s responsibility to address these shortcomings.
“Congress can support further funding for the Center
for SafeSport,” she said, “as it has done historicallyfor the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency by contributing $10
million per year. …The Olympic [and Paralympic]

many athletes believed USOPC put “medals andmoney” ahead of safety and athlete well-being, andit highlighted a policy in effect as late as April 2018
whereby review panels were asked to take into account “the effect on [USOPC’s] reputation” when deciding whether to sanction individuals for committing abuse.137 The report also noted the dangerous
variability in how governing bodies handled reports
of abuse and no clear standard imposed by USOPC,with U.S.A. Gymnastics even having interpreted its
own bylaws to allow its officials not to refer sexual-abuse allegations to law enforcement. Neither did
USOPC require NGBs or PSOs to share information
The Committee found that many athleteswith it concerning abuse allegations. At the same
believed USOPC put ‘medals and money’ time, governing bodies did not share a consistentahead of safety and athlete well-being...
definition of who was considered to be a “covered
individual” for the purposes of reporting and invesCommittee believes that [SafeSport’s] independence tigating allegations of abuse, and background-checkfrom the Olympic [and Paralympic] Committee is policies were both inconsistent among NGBs andcritical to its success.”134 Moreover, perhaps in a PSOs and often unenforced. Moreover, some govnod to former CEO LeRoy Walker’s 1995 expressed erning bodies did not maintain public lists of sancview that Congress gave USOPC a mandate in the tioned and banned individuals, even while SafeSport
Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act that included individuals from those governing bodies in
was too broad and insufficiently funded, the for- its comprehensive database. The report stated that:mer USOPC executive asked the Subcommittee to “concerns remain regarding [SafeSport’s] resources, in“identify areas for potential clarification or expan- dependence, policies and procedures, and whether orsion of the Olympic [and Paralympic] Committee’s not the Olympic community has confidence in [SafeSauthority, or other needed reforms, including out- port].”138
side of the Act.”135
It was clear to stakeholders and policymakers alike
In December 2018, the same month that Ropes & that the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse
Gray LLP released its report, the House Energy and and Safe Sport Act did not go far enough to achieve
Commerce Committee published its own investiga- its goal of preventing abuse in the U.S. Olympic andtive findings relating to the safety crisis in U.S. Olym- Paralympic movement. Safety, however, was not thepic and Paralympic sports. Its conclusions were a only challenge these structural deficiencies had fafurther indictment of USOPC’s flawed approach to cilitated or exacerbated. Indeed, the more Congresssafety rooted in systemic, structural failings. “Per- looked into the roots of the abuse crisis, the more aphaps most troubling of the Committee’s findings,” the parent it became that safety was only one of the mareport stated, “is the culture within the Olympic com- jor challenges threatening the well-being of athletes
munity which prioritizes reputation and image, rath- and the integrity of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
er than athlete safety.” 136 The Committee found that movement in the twenty-first century.
133

Peters, “When Coaching Becomes Criminal,” 31.

134 “Testimony of Susanne Lyons, Acting Chair, U.S. Olympic Committee,” U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security, July 24, 2018.
135

Ibid.

136

“Nassar and Beyond,” U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 3.

137

Ibid.

138

Ibid., 120.

Historical Background47

the shortfall even after receiving a small grant from
U.S.A. Fencing through USOPC, obtaining endorseAmong those challenges—both at the high-perfor- ment sponsorship from private businesses, and genmance and at youth and grassroots levels—are per- erating small-business income. “Fencing is one of thesistent financial barriers to access. For high-perfor- most expensive Olympic sports,” she told CNN Monmance athletes aiming to represent the United States ey at the time. “It can cost you more than $20,000 ain international competition, these barriers have led year” to train and purchase specialized equipment.141
many to choose between leaving their sports to find
full-time work or continuing to train and compete As more high-performance athletes began turning towhile struggling with poverty or financial insecurity. crowdfunding to help finance their training and findPrior to the 2014 Sochi Olympics, one short-track support for basics like rent, food, and transportation,
speedskater relied on food stamps as she trained NGBs and PSOs took notice. In 2013, the U.S. Ski andfull-time, six days a week. “The last thing you want Snowboard Association entered into a partnershipto be worried about in a year like this,” she said about with one crowdfunding platform. Several other govmaking the decision to seek public food-stamp assis- erning bodies followed suit in 2014, including U.S.A.
tance, “is being able to pay your rent and eat, and you Cycling, U.S.A. Bobsled-Skeleton, and U.S.A. Arwant to eat healthy. That was pretty hard… But I’m chery.142 Many Paralympic athletes, particularly youth
not the only one suffering”.139 Those training to com- athletes, also now turn to crowdfunding to help defraypete in Olympic-level figure skating see costs as high costs, particularly those who did not become disabled
as $50,000 per year. One reserve athlete who traveled as a result of military service and cannot take advanto the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics for U.S.A. Mod- tage of a plethora of post-9/11 veterans-focused proern Pentathlon faced as much as $23,000 in travel grams offering funding and training opportunities.143
expenses each year to attend trainings and competitions while earning an income of just $8,000, partly To support high-performance athletes duringfrom donations.140 A U.S. medalist in fencing at the their training and competition, USOPC has had
2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics, during her training, a number of financial-assistance initiatives. Eachlaunched a crowdfunding campaign to make up year, NGBs and PSOs receive funding to support
ATHLETES’ FINANCIAL BURDENS

139

Kelly Whiteside, “For some Olympic hopefuls, funding is a hurdle,” USA Today, July 1, 2013.

140

Gwen Moran, “Olympic Athletes Struggle Financially While Striving for Gold,” Fast Company, August 9, 2016.

141

Ahiza Garcia, “U.S. Olympic athletes sure aren’t paid like champions,” CNN Money, July 7, 2016.

142 Dave Seminara, “Facing Uphill Struggle for Sponsors, U.S. Skiers Lead a Crowdfunding Trend,” The New York Times, December 23,
2014.
143 Heather Dichter and John Kinder, “The deep ties between the Paralympics and the U.S. military—and what they mean,” The Washington Post, August 29, 2021.

48

Historical Backgroundathletes from USOPC through Performance Partnership Agreements and can designate a certain
number of their athletes for inclusion in USOPC’s
Athlete Performance Pool, making them eligible forassistance in the form of grants, health insurance,
tuition support, and achievement bonuses. USOPC
also provides cash awards to athletes through Operation Gold, with payments at the $37,500 levelfor gold medals in the Olympics or Paralympics,$22,500 for silver, and $15,000 for bronze. Athletes
who reach winning positions in other top-level international competitions also receive Operation
Gold payments.144 Many—but not all—governing
bodies provide winning athletes with additional
podium prizes in the form of cash bonuses that
supplement their Operation Gold payments; theamount of such prizes differs from each governing
body to the next, based on availability of funds. In
2021, USOPC spent $13.2 million to reward 603
athletes through Operation Gold during the Tokyo
Olympics and Paralympics and other international
events, averaging $21,890 per athlete.145 That same
year, it provided 451 high-performance athleteswith $2.6 million in tuition assistance, averaging$5,676 per recipient.146 Each year, USOPC also allocates coverage-slots to NGBs and PSOs in the Elite
Athlete Health Insurance (EAHI) program. Those
deemed eligible by their NGBs or PSOs are able toenroll with 100% of the monthly premium paid by
USOPC.147

ans and Paralympians Act two weeks after the Riode Janeiro games concluded. The House and Senate moved quickly to pass it, and President Barack
Obama signed it into law on October 7, 2016, ensuring that those who had brought glory to our country
on the medal podium that year would be the first to
benefit from this change.148 In the past, Olympic andParalympic medalists were taxed not only on their
USOPC Operation Gold bonuses; they also had to
declare and pay taxes on the value of the metal contained in gold and silver prize medals.149
Financial barriers are magnified for para-athletes,
who often face much higher costs for specialized
training and adapted-sport equipment, in part the result of a long tradition of ableism in American sports
and society. Sports prosthetics and adaptive gear cancost thousands of dollars and are rarely covered byhealth insurance.150 While USOPC and PSOs help
cover costs for travel to the Paralympics and makegrants available to high-performance Paralympic
athletes similar to those provided to their Olympic
counterparts, the costs facing those participating inpara-sports have always been higher and the shortfalls in funding wider. Private organizations, such as
the Challenge Athletics Foundation and Move United
continue to help by providing sponsorships, grants,
and training opportunities to athletes in Paralympic
sports at all levels, and Toyota announced $5 million
worth of sponsorships and direct stipends for U.S.
Paralympic athletes in May 2021.151 However, this
support is still dwarfed by what resources are madeavailable for those in non-para sports.

One step forward in recent years to alleviate a small
additional financial burden on those who make it to
the Olympics and Paralympics was Congress’s enactment of legislation in 2016 to eliminate taxes on the In a major step forward, USOPC’s Board of Direcvalue of medals and on medal bonuses. Rep. Robert tors voted in September 2018 to equalize the top
Dold introduced the U.S. Appreciation for Olympi- prize bonuses under Operation Gold for Olym144 “Financial Resources,” U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, accessed May 17, 2023, https://www.teamusa.org/Team-USA-Athlete-Services/Financial-Resources.
145

Internal Revenue Service, 2021, “Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee.”

146

Ibid.

147 “Elite Athlete Health Insurance,” U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, accessed May 16, 2023, https://www.teamusa.org/TeamUSA-Athlete-Services/Medical/Athlete-Health-Insurance.
148

Pub. L. 114-239.

149

Ahiza Garcia, “Congrats you won a gold medal. Now here’s your tax bill,” CNN Money, August 12, 2016.

150 “The Cost of Paralympic Triathlon Gold,” U.S.A. Triathlon Foundation, November 24, 2021, accessed May 24, 2023, https://usatriathlonfoundation.org/blog/cost-paralympic-triathlon-gold/.
151 Michelle Bruton, “How Women-Led USOPC Is Leading Charge for Gender Equity In Olympic and Paralympic Movement,” Forbes, July 9.
2021.

Historical Background

pic and Paralympic athletes. Before the change,
Paralympic gold medals were only accompanied bya bonus of $7,500, compared to $37,500 for Olympic gold. Silver brought $5,250 instead of $22,500,
and bronze earned a third-place finisher just $3,750
where an Olympian on the bottom level of the podium would receive $22,500. One Paralympic alpine
skier, reflected on the impact of this change: “I wasable to finally buy a house and start up an actual
life. It’s a drop in the bucket, we get it once every four
years, but it makes a huge difference.”152

49

sure it’s integrated into everything we do.”154 At the sametime, in recent years PSOs have been adding staff withspecialized skills in training, nutrition, and physiology,
recognizing the importance of investing in preparing
U.S. athletes for Paralympic, Parapan-American, andother international competition.155 Even with thesegains, however, athletes with disabilities at all levels ofparticipation and competition continue to face uniquechallenges and persistent inequities.
U.S. Paralympics launched under the direction of
USOPC in 2001 to improve American participation in
the Paralympic Games and support the training and development of high-performance Paralympic athletes.156
As more Americans are exposed to the Paralympics
through television, the internet, and social media,
Paralympic athletes are getting more much-deserved
attention. Ableist attitudes are changing as well, evenwhile longstanding biases persist. Positive developments for Paralympic athletes and sports development
within USOPC have occurred in parallel with growthin the Paralympic movement more broadly as well.

For years, USOPC and the governing bodies had
prevented athletes within the movement from seeking or accepting individual sponsorships. Startingin March 2021, however, USOPC launched its Athlete Marketing Platform with the intention of helping high-performance athletes access marketing income. Since its inception, this program has enabledmore than 800 athletes to earn an average of over
$3,000 a year from licensing their name, image, andlikeness (commonly referred to as “NIL”) rights.153
This came amid a national conversation about income inequality in sports, with the NCAA recog- Following the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, athletes, coaches,nizing individual collegiate athletes’ NIL rights for parents and guardians, and community leaders formed
the first time in July 2021.
the non-profit American Association of AdaptedSports Programs (AAASP). Along with other orgaTHE GROWTH OF U.S. PARALYMPICS
nizations of a similar nature that were founded in theyears since, AAASP has brought Paralympic sports to
AND ONGOING CHALLENGES WITHACCESSIBILITY
2,490 schools in 210 school districts across the country,
helping more than 7,000 disabled students participate
One of the most important positive developments in in sports programs. Work by private organizations
the movement in recent years has been a stronger push like AAASP, Move United, and the Challenge Athletfor equality between U.S. Olympics and U.S. Paralym- ics Foundation have continued to increase youth andpics. Following the alignment of Olympic and Paralym- grassroots participation in Paralympic sports, formpic Operation Gold payments a year earlier, the USOPC ing a critical pipeline for identifying and developing
Board of Directors voted in 2019 to rename the organi- high-performance athletes to represent the United
zation to include “Paralympic” alongside “Olympic” on States in international competition.
an equal basis. USOPC’s Chief of Paralympic Sports
at the time observed: “Paralympics has been part of In 2008, recognizing the physical- and menthe organization for a long time, and getting it into the tal-health benefits of sports participation among
name was that final push across the finish line to make disabled military veterans—and with the commu152

Danielle Allentuck, “Paralympians See a Big Welcome in a Small Title Change,” The New York Times, June 29, 2019.

153 “Athlete Marketing Platform,” U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, accessed May 18, 2023, https://www.teamusa.org/Team-USAAthlete-Services/Athlete-Marketing-Platform.
154

Allentuck, “Paralympians See a Big Welcome in a Small Title Change.”

155

Ben Shpigel, “How Training for the Paralympics Became a Full-Time Job,” The New York Times, March 16, 2018.

156 “Paralympic Sport Development,” U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, accessed May 24, 2023, https://www.teamusa.org/teamusa-athlete-services/paralympic-sport-development.

50

Historical Backgroundnity of disabled veterans growing as a result of those
returning from combat in Afghanistan and Iraq—
Congress enacted the Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act.157 That legislation created the V.A. Officeof National Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events, which not only promotes Paralympic
sports among veterans but also provides a monthly stipend to support individual veteran Paralympic athletes in their training for high-performancecompetition.158 The office also hosts Paralympic
sports clinics and competitions several times a year
and provides grants to organizations that promote
Paralympic sports in communities across the country.159 Since 2010, the U.S. Department of Defense
has hosted an annual Warrior Games, which features competition between service-branch teams inmany Paralympic sports and provides an additional training and competition opportunity for U.S.
Paralympians who are also veterans.160
Until 2000, the United States had dominated thesummer Paralympic medal tables and fared well in
the winter games, but U.S. medal performance has
fallen in the years since. (See Appendix II.) With thecomplete integration of Paralympics into USOPC
and a new vigor for investment in Paralympic
high-performance athlete development, that may
change in the coming years, and more Paralympic
athletes may likewise benefit from USOPC’s Athlete Marketing Platform and its new sponsorship
opportunities. Regardless, Paralympic athletes
continue to face financial barriers to participation
through the extra costs of training, equipment, andtravel on top of the costs faced by high-performance athletes generally.

ment dating back to 2017. One of them, a two-timeParalympian who competed in Beijing in 2012 andRio de Janeiro in 2016, stated publicly: “Disabled
women are one of the most unheard populations out
there, and enough is enough.”161 In November 2022,
an athlete who competed for the United States inswimming at the 2020 Tokyo Paralympics cameforward to accuse one of his teammates, a medalist in the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Paralympics and the2020 Tokyo Paralympics, of rape. The swimmer
sued both USOPC and SafeSport for failing to act
on a previous complaint against the same individual and allowing unsupervised access while at theTokyo games.162
While advances toward equity for Paralympics havehelped increase opportunities for many Americans
with disabilities to participate in movement sports,
not all have historically been included within thisParalympic sports are not immune fromabuse and threats to safety either.

system. Because U.S. Paralympics does not recognize deafness as an official disability category forthe purposes of eligibility, deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes have built their own parallel system ofsports participation. Organized around the worldby the International Committee of Sports for theDeaf (ICSD) and in the United States by the U.S.A.
Deaf Sports Federation (the ICSD’s equivalent of anational organizing committee), their quadrennial
summer and winter Deaflympic Games have been
operating continuously since 1924. While the IOC
recognized the ICSD and accepted the Deaflympics
Paralympic sports are not immune from abuse and as part of the broader global Olympic movement
threats to safety either. The head coach of the U.S. in 1955, deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes and theirwomen’s wheelchair basketball team resigned in sports were omitted when Congress organized theDecember 2021 after current and former athletes U.S. Olympic movement under the Ted Stevens
alleged emotional and verbal abuse and harass- Olympic and Amateur Sports Act in 1978 and the157

Pub. L. 110-389.

158

Ibid.

159 “VA Adaptive Sports and Arts,” U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, accessed June 8, 2023, https://department.va.gov/veteran-sports/.
160“About,” Department of Defense Warrior Games, accessed June 8, 2023, https://dodwarriorgames.com/about.

161

Alex Azzi, “U.S. wheelchair basketball coach resigns after players allege emotional misconduct,” NBC Sports, December 10, 2021.

162

Jenny Vrentas, “An American Paralympian Says He Was Sexually Abused by a Teammate,” The New York Times, November 14, 2022.

Historical Background1998 amendment integrating U.S. Paralympics. In
part that decision resulted from a concern by both
Paralympic and Deaflympic officials that bothwould lose funding and representation if U.S. Deaflympics were to be brought inside the U.S. Olympic
and Paralympic movement—as well as a hesitancy by U.S. Paralympic officials to cover the cost ofsign-language interpreters at events.
For deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes, the barriers
to participation in Olympic sports are markedly
different from those of athletes with other physical disabilities within the Paralympics. While para
sports involve adaptations to either the athlete (e.g.,through a prosthetic or wheelchair) or to the sport
itself (e.g., through use of a sight-guide or a modified
playing field or rules), deaf sports require only adapted methods of communication. A sprinter who cannot hear a gunshot must have another way to know
exactly when a race begins. A device with flashinglights takes the place of the starting gun. Flags replace whistles on a soccer field. In such ways, deaf
and hard-of-hearing players have traditionally partaken in Olympic sports, not Paralympic ones—albeit with adapted communication where permitted.
One of the challenges stemming from the status of
U.S. Deaflympics not being addressed by the Ted
Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act is the
U.S.A. Deaf Sports Federation’s inhibited ability toseek sponsorship funding or raise revenues using
the “Deaflympics” trademark. Though the IOC has
granted this trademark to the Deaflympics on aninternational basis, this is not the case in the UnitedStates. As a result, the development of deaf sports
at all levels across the country has been hampered
through a lack of sufficient funding. Another challenge centers on concerns raised about the ability of
SafeSport to address the unique needs of deaf andhard-of-hearing youth, who are at a 25% greaterrisk from abuse generally than the rest of the population.163 While clubs and leagues operated under
the umbrella of the U.S.A. Deaf Sports Federation,
which holds affiliate status with USOPC, are sub-51

ject to SafeSport’s jurisdiction, SafeSport has not
implemented any specialized programs focused on
the safety of deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes.
An additional challenge for deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes is equitable access to non-para and nondeaf sports. In 2020, the parents of a seven-year-old
deaf athlete who was denied accommodation by his
local NGB-affiliated local soccer club in Colorado
sued in federal court on the grounds of a violationof the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The
suit contended that the club had stopped providing auxiliary-hearing aids and interpretive services,
requiring the parents to pay for them out of pocket, creating a financial burden that led to their son
leaving the soccer program. Under a settlement
reached through the U.S. Attorney’s office, the local soccer club agreed to pay compensatory damages and accommodate deaf and hard-of-hearing
athletes.164 Currently, NGBs are not required tocomply with the ADA, in large part because of thenature of non-para sports and because PSOs aresupposed to fill the gap by creating corresponding
opportunities for athletes with disabilities to participate equally in sports. However, with Congress
having left deaf sports outside the statutory framework of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic system,
ambiguities concerning accessibility requirements
must be clarified through the judicial process.
PERSISTENT GAPS IN EQUITABLE ACCESSTO PARTICIPATION AT ALL LEVELS
Another major challenge that has emerged in recent years is the failure to close stubborn gaps inequitable access to and participation in movement
sports at every level. For women and girls, racialand ethnic minorities, and Americans with disabilities, equitable access to Olympic and Paralympic
sports continues to be hindered both by the longterm impacts of historical social and economic inequalities in our country as well as the nearer-term
effects of policies and governance structures within the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement.

163 Rochester Institute of Technology, “Abuse rates higher among deaf and hard-of-hearing children compared with hearing youths,” February 15, 2011.
164 U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Colorado, “U.S. Attorney’s Office Gets Relief Under ADA for 10-Year-Old Deaf Soccer Player,” April 10,
2020.

52

Historical Background

Where we have seen great progress, we have also
seen obstinate barriers that keep too many in ourcountry from being able to participate and strive toreach their full potential.
Since the enactment of Title IX in 1972, the participation of women and girls in sports has expanded
steadily. That year, only 294,015 girls in high schoolin this country had an opportunity to participate insports; by 2019, that number had risen to 3,402,733.
The percentage of high-school athletes on varsity
teams who are girls rose from just 7% to 43% overthat same period. In collegiate sports, we’ve seena seven-fold increase in the number of womenparticipating, and nearly half of college-team athletes are now women.165 Not only have U.S. women and girls seen an explosion in access and engagement in movement sports since Title IX, but
America’s sports infrastructure also has become
better adapted to training and empowering female
athletes. Particularly at the collegiate level, where
NCAA programs generally form a key piece of thehigh-performance pipeline for U.S. teams in international competition, women from across theworld have been able to access opportunities todevelop and expand skills in their sports. In 2021,
more than seventy-five national delegations to thatyear’s rescheduled 2020 Tokyo Olympics featured
women who had participated in NCAA programs
at American colleges and universities.166 Indeed, increased women’s participation in movement sports
has substantially benefitted U.S. performance at
the Olympic and Paralympic games; according toa 2022 report by the Women’s Sports Foundation,“if the U.S. women were their own country, their collective performance [at the Tokyo Olympics] would
have fallen third behind only the Russian Olympic
Committee and China.”167
165

Still, even with these gains, much work for gender
parity remains incomplete. Women and girls ofcolor still participate in grassroots sports at lower
rates. Disparities in access to higher education generally have contributed to inequities in many sports
at the collegiate level, raising barriers to access for
specialized training, participation, and high-performance competition.168 In spite of Title IX requiring NCAA-member institutions to provide equitable support for men’s and women’s sports programs,
the NCAA itself is exempt under a 1999 Supreme
Court ruling from similarly providing an equitable
distribution of resources to male and female collegiate athletes and teams participating in its competitions.169 When colleges and universities cut
funding for non-revenue-generating men’s sports
programs during periods of economic downturn
while continuing to spend on football and basketball, administrators continue citing Title IX as aconvenient scapegoat, engendering public ill-will
toward women’s collegiate sports.170
Meanwhile, one of the most pressing issues regarding equity for women and girls in the U.S. Olympic
and Paralympic movement in recent years has beenunequal pay. Starting in 2016, athletes competingon the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team sought
to force their NGB, the U.S. Soccer Federation, toprovide stipends, bonuses, and training resources
equal to those provided to the men’s national team,which historically did not perform as well in international competition. A 2016 complaint to the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission171 later formed the basis of a 2019 unequal-pay and gender discrimination lawsuit by athletes against the
U.S. Soccer Federation that was eventually settled in
2022.172 Before that settlement, the U.S. Soccer Federation had paid bonuses to men’s team players thatdwarfed those provided to the women’s team, even

“50 Years of Title IX: We’re Not Done Yet,” Women’s Sports Foundation, May 2022.

166 Alan Blinder, “A Common Sight on U.S. Campuses: The Rest of the World’s Female Olympians,” The New York Times, February 24,
2023.
167

“50 Years of Title IX,” Women’s Sports Foundation, 7.

168

Ibid.

169

Victoria Jackson, “NCAA Gender Inequity Is a Feature, Not a Bug,” Global Sports Matters, November 9, 2021.

170 Bill Whitaker, “Some colleges axing ‘secondary sports’ like gymnastics and tennis as pandemic continues,” CBS News, December 6,
2020.
171

Bill Chappell, “U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Members File Federal Equal-Pay Complaint,” NPR, March 31, 2016.

172

Andrew Das, “U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Sues U.S. Soccer for Gender Discrimination,” The New York Times, March 8, 2019.

Historical Background53

though the latter brought in millions of dollars inrevenue and the former operated at a loss.173 Whilepart of the issue stemmed from unequal treatmentof the men’s and women’s World Cup tournaments
by the International Association Football Federation(FIFA), the international governing body for soccer,
the practices undertaken by the U.S. Soccer Federation drew sharp criticism from players, fans, and policymakers. In much the same vein, the U.S. Women’s
National Ice Hockey Team, which had won the silver
medals in both the 2010 Vancouver and 2014 Sochi
Olympics, boycotted the International Ice Hockey
Federation’s world championships in March 2017
over the issue of inequitable pay and support. Team
captain Meghan Duggan explained: “We are asking
for a living wage and for U.S.A. Hockey to fully support its programs for women and girls and stop treating us like an afterthought.”174

In addition to the aforementioned gender disparities, studies have also shown that LGBTQ Americans face obstacles to participation in movement
sports. A 2017 study commissioned by the Human
Rights Campaign Foundation and the University ofConnecticut found not only that 84% of Americans
surveyed had encountered anti-LGBTQ attitudes
in a sports context but also that 78% of American
athletes and spectators view youth team sports as
an unsafe environment for LGBTQ participants.177
In 2019, a study of LGBTQ youth in schools reported that 43.7% of LGBTQ students avoided
locker rooms completely, and nearly as many kept
away from physical education classes. One in four
would not set foot on their schools’ athletic fields
or inside school athletic facilities.178 The benefitsof youth-sports participation for LGBTQ Americans, though, are clear: those who are able to access
sports safely report a higher sense of safety in their
Indeed, amid the outcry over these gender pay dis- classrooms, lower levels of depression, and higher
parities and public solidarity with athletes standing self-esteem.179
up for equitable pay and resources, Sens. Maria
Cantwell and Shelly Moore Capito introduced the For racial and ethnic minorities already experiencEqual Pay for Team USA Act in the Senate in July ing persistent disparities in income, wealth, and op2021. Their legislation requires USOPC, NGBs, and portunity, gaps in movement-sports participation
PSOs to provide athletes with equal pay regardless endure as well, particularly for youth. Accordingof gender and to demand that USOPC decertify to the HHS National Survey of Children’s Health,
NGBs or PSOs that violate this practice. The House while 62.9% of white children ages six to seventeen
and Senate both passed the bill in December 2022, reported participating on sports teams or taking
and President Joe Biden signed it into law that same sports lessons in the 2018-2019 survey period, only
month.175 As a result, Congress has now promised 47.3% of African-American and 47.4% of Hispan“equivalent and nondiscriminatory compensation, ic-American children indicated the same.180 Meanwages, benefits, medical care, travel arrangements, while, HHS’s National Youth Sports Survey in 2019and payment for reimbursement for expenses”176 for found a direct correlation between poverty andmale and female athletes in the U.S. Olympic and lower rates of participation among youth in sports
Paralympic movement.
outside of school.181
173

Laura Santhanam, “Data: How does the U.S. women’s soccer team pay compare to the men?” PBS News Hour, March 31, 2016.

174 Seth Berkman, “U.S. Women’s Hockey Team Plans to Boycott World Championship Over Pay Dispute,” The New York Times, March 15,
2017.
175

Pub. L. 117-340.

176

Ibid.

177

“Play to Win: Improving the Lives of LGBTQ Youth in Sports,” Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2017.

178 Joseph Kosciw, Caitlin Clark, Nhan Truong, and Adrian Zongrone, The 2019 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth in Our Nation’s Schools (New York: GLSEN, 2020).
179“Play to Win,” Human Rights Campaign Foundation.

180 “National Survey on Children’s Health,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, accessed May 24, 2023, https://health.gov/
healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/physical-activity/increase-proportion-children-and-adolescents-who-play-sportspa-12/data?group=Race%2FEthnicity&state=United+States&from=2016&to=2021&populations=#edit-submit.
181 “National Youth Sports Strategy,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services, 2019): 35-36.

54

Historical Background

Those wishing to partake in local youth and grassroots sports, particularly for those whose communities lack basic sports and fitness infrastructure,continue to face high costs in the pursuit of accessand participation. According to data released in
2022 by the Aspen Institute and Utah State University, the average annual family spending per child on
his or her participation in a primary sport was $883,
with the wealthiest households spending aroundfour times the amount on a child’s sports participation than the lowest-income households.182 Access to a range of athletic facilities, from clean andmarked playing fields to indoor ice rinks and safe
and maintained fitness equipment, often depends
on family income, community wealth, and local officials’ prioritization of funding for educational andrecreational infrastructure. A rural-urban-suburban divide in access to facilities has also historicallyraised obstacles to participation in certain movement sports. There continues to be a disparity as
well between sports programs offered by private
and public schools.183 Moreover, 92% of publicpark-and-recreation agencies charge participation
fees for youth sports.184 During the COVID-19 pandemic, sports and fitness activities sharply declined
for children from families at income levels below$50,000 a year but increased for those from families
with annual household incomes of over $100,000.185
THE AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT MODELFOR COACHING
One of the concerns highlighted in the 2019 Aspen
Institute and Utah State University study, related tothe challenges of participation drop-off and inequities in access, was a substantial lack of consistentand appropriate training for coaches for youth inmovement sports.186 In a step aimed at addressing
this problem, in 2014 USOPC adopted the American Development Model framework to promote
quality coaching and healthy sports participation,
which had been developed since 2009 by U.S.A.
Hockey and several other governing bodies. In theyears after, USOPC has been working to unify stan-

182“State of Play 2022: Cost-to-Play Trends,” The Aspen Institute: Project Play, 2022.

183“State of Play 2019: Trends and Developments in Youth Sports,” The Aspen Institute: Project Play, 2019.

184“Youth Sports at Park and Recreation Agencies,” National Recreation and Park Association, July 2020.

185“State of Play 2022: Physical & Mental Health Trends,” The Aspen Institute: Project Play, 2022.

186“State of Play,” The Aspen Institute: Project Play, 2019.

Historical Backgrounddards for youth-sports development across NGBs
and PSOs through this model, disseminating it tocoaches, parents and guardians, leagues, and otherorganizations both within and beyond the organizations it oversees directly.
The American Development Model seeks to engage
youth in sports through age-appropriate expectations for the individual growth of each athlete. Its
five key principles are:1) Universal access to create opportunities for
all athletes;2) Developmentally appropriate activities thatemphasize motor and foundational skills;
3) multi-sport participation;
4) [A] fun, engaging, and progressively challenging atmosphere;5) Quality coaching at all age levels.187
One of the most striking differences in this approach is the embrace of multi-sport sampling foryoung athletes and a focus on developmentally appropriate activities instead of incentives to commit
to one sport early on. That approach—early-age
specialization—had become more prevalent nationally in youth sports and has been associatedwith increased risk of burnout and overuse injuries
in children and young adults.188 Some NGBs and
PSOs have recently begun discouraging the holdingof national championships for young children andranking participants under age twelve, which has
deterred young athletes from multi-sport sampling;
however, not all sports governing bodies have yetdone so.189 Of course, USOPC and governing bodies’ adoption of the American Development Model has not led to its widespread adoption by the
myriad private youth-sports organizations serving

55

millions of children and operating outside the formal structure of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
movement.
THE BORDERS COMMISSION
In September 2018, anticipating the impending release of the Ropes & Gray LLP report andthe findings of the House Energy and CommerceCommittee, USOPC authorized its own internal
independent, nine-member commission, which included Han Xiao and was led by former Women’s
National Basketball Association (WNBA) President Lisa Borders. This Borders Commission was
tasked specifically with identifying recommendations for improving USOPC’s role with regard toathletes and governing bodies as well as its oversight responsibilities. Its report was completed andpublished in July 2019.
The Borders Commission found that “The USOPC
has taken a too limited and narrow view of its roleand responsibilities,” and recommended majorchanges to USOPC governance.190 First, the commissioners urged a reconstitution of its Board of
Directors, including members directly elected fromthe AAC and other athlete representatives as wellas members representing the NGBs and PSOs. Second, Board members must be given special training on USOPC’s institutional history, the roles andfiduciary responsibilities of the Board members to
USOPC, and the “model of Olympic [and Paralympic] sport” in the United States as set forth in the Ted
Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.191 Additionally, every USOPC committee ought to have atleast 20% of its members drawn from the ranks ofathletes selected by the AAC or by the U.S. Olympians and Paralympians Association (USOPA), which
represents retired high-performance athletes.
Moreover, the Borders Commission recommended
that the AAC must be allocated sustained funding
by USOPC, sufficient to hire administrative staff

187 “American Development Model,” U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee, accessed May 8, 2023, https://www.teamusa.org/About-theUSOPC/Coaching-Education/American-Development-Model.
188

Farrey, Game On, 84-104.

189“State of Play,” The Aspen Institute: Project Play, 2019.

190 “Borders Commission: An Independent Panel Chartered by the USOPC—Final Report,” U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, July
2019, 11.
191

Ibid., 12.

56

Historical Backgroundanswering to AAC directly, and control its own
budget. Each NGB and PSO, the report contended,should have its own athletes’ council, and USOPC
ought to launch a ‘one-stop-shop’ microsite online
for athletes to be able to find information and access beneficial resources. Furthermore, making
pro-bono attorneys available to represent athletes
in the dispute resolution process was advised—aswell as the creation of a Chief Compliance Officer
within USOPC responsible for ensuring compliance with SafeSport, USADA, internal policies, andfederal statute. With regard to governing-body certification, the commissioners recommended biennial compliance audits to ensure that the NGBs and
PSOs meet requirements to protect athletes andimplement good governance and budgeting procedures.192
In short, the Borders Commission made it clearthat “athletes, their well-being throughout their lifecycle including competitive performance and beyond, must be at the center of all USOPC and NGB
efforts.”193 To do so, the commissioners made clear,“the culture of the USOPC must change in order tobuild the trust of the athletes.”194 Hiring more athletes to serve as USOPC staff and increasing staff
diversity were recommended to achieve that goal.
Perhaps most important among its directives, theBorders Commission report urged Congress to revisit the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports
Act and update it for the twenty-first century, recommending amendments that would substantiallyrewrite both the statutory mandates for USOPC
as well as its chartered structure and oversight of
NGBs and PSOs.195 Lisa Borders stated: “The 2019
report recommended an organizational shift from‘money for medals’ to ‘people and performance.’”196

ommendations. The Board of Directors updated
the organization’s bylaws to allow athletes, directly
elected, to fill a third of its seats as well as to require
NGBs and PSOs to establish athletes’ councils. In
January 2020, USOPC agreed to provide the AAC
with annual funding, starting at $525,000 and increasing 2% annually in order to enable the hiringof professional staff and support additional expenses. Furthermore, USOPC hired a Chief Ethics andCompliance Officer and established a compliancecommittee, as the commissioners had suggested.197
In parallel to USOPC officials’ actions, and informedby the recommendations of the Borders Commission report as well as the House Energy and Commerce Committee report, some lawmakers began to
explore what Congress’s role ought to be in addressing systemic challenges beyond what USOPC, NGBs,
and PSOs could address on their own.
THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC’S IMPACT
ON THE U.S. OLYMPIC & PARALYMPICMOVEMENTThe COVID-19 pandemic that brought an end to
many public events and required public-healthlockdowns starting in the spring of 2020 exacerbated many athletes’ financial hardships while exposing just how vulnerable many are even to temporary
lapses in support. The 2020 Tokyo Olympics andParalympics were not the only major competitions
to be postponed due to the global health emergency; more than 8,000 domestic sporting events werealso cancelled, leading to a loss of an estimated$600-800 million in revenue for USOPC, the NGBs,
and the PSOs from licensing. From that, USOPC
officials told lawmakers that high-performance athletes would see $25 million less in funding. Whenthey asked Congress to help make up the shortfall
In the months that followed, USOPC began to im- with a $200 million emergency appropriation toplement several of the Borders Commission’s rec- maintain funding support for 2,500 high-perfor-

192

Ibid.

193

Ibid., 11.

194

Ibid., 16.

195

Ibid.

196 “The Borders Commission, An Independent Panel Chartered by the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, Releases One-Year Progress Report,” U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, August 18, 2020.
197

Ibid.

Historical Backgroundmance athletes—as well as USOPC, NGB, and PSO
staff—Congress did not oblige.198 One U.S.A. Boxing athlete noted that not only was he concerned
about generating income for himself while training,
he also worried about the closure of small gyms
and other local facilities in communities across thecountry where youth and grassroots athletes train
and benefit from the sport. “Boxing gives a lot of
people sanctuary,” he explained, “it gives them ahome, it gives them structure and discipline that I
think a lot of people need.”199

57

lated shortfalls from the cancellation of its annual
men’s and women’s basketball championships.202

In a survey conducted by USOPC in 2020 of 737
high-performance athletes training for spots on the
U.S. team for Tokyo 2020, 59% reported an expected income of less than $25,000 for the year. Threequarters responded that they had lost income as aresult of the COVID-19 pandemic; greater than aquarter of these athletes lost more than half theirincome. Moreover, one third did not receive any
additional assistance—beyond what the U.S. government made available to the general public in pandemic relief—from
Less than two months into the pandemic, nearly half
their NGB, PSO, educational instiof all parks and recreation agencies in the country
tution, or local club. More than half
had been directed to cut their budgets, and 65% hadof the athletes surveyed wished theyclosed public outdoor sports fields and playing courts. had opportunities for paid sponsorships.203
Another consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic
was a diminishing of opportunities within the col- The impact of COVID-19 reached all the way down
legiate component of our Olympic- and Paralym- the Olympic- and Paralympic-sports pipeline andpic-sports development pipeline. Between March into the youth- and grassroots-sports landscape.
and November 2020, more than 350 NCAA pro- Less than two months into the pandemic, nearlygrams were cut by colleges and universities, mostly half of all parks and recreation agencies in the counfrom Olympic and Paralympic sports. “Every time try had been directed to cut their budgets, and 65%
there’s an economic downturn,” explains sports his- had closed public outdoor sports fields and playtorian Victoria Jackson, college-athletics programs ing courts.204 The Aspen Institute found in a Sep“protect the core business, which is football, which tember 2021 survey that 44% of families reportedmeans other sports are on the chopping block.”200 In that their community-based youth-sports programsome cases, these institutions ended programs not had shut down, merged with another, or reduced
long after they had recruited and offered scholar- capacity during the pandemic.205 Respondents furships to athletes who demonstrated talent in these ther shared that three in ten children who had presports.201 In 2020, the NCAA ended up paying par- viously engaged in organized youth-sports activity
ticipating colleges and universities less than half of no longer wished to do so after the pandemic.206
what it had originally budgeted to support athletes However, parents also reported that many children
in non-revenue sports as a result of pandemic-re- used the pandemic to explore new sports, particu198

Torrey Hart, “U.S. Olympic Athletes in Financial Limbo Without Olympics, Events,” Front Office Sports, August 7. 2020.

199

Ibid.

200 Bill Whitaker, “Some colleges axing ‘secondary sports’ like gymnastics and tennis as pandemic continues,” CBS News, December 6,
2020.
201 Aishwarya Kumar, “The heartbreaking reality—and staggering numbers—of NCAA teams cut during the pandemic,” ESPN, November
6, 2020.
202

Alan Blinder, “Hammered by Pandemic, N.C.A.A. Revenue Falls by $600 Million,” The New York Times, January 25, 2021.

203 “COVID-19 Impact Athlete Survey,” U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, accessed May 16, 2023, https://www.teamusa.org/
COVID19-Impact-Athlete-Survey.
204“NRPA Parks Snapshot: April 15-17,” National Recreation and Park Association, April 17, 2020.

205

Travis Dorsch and Jordan Blazo, COVID-19 Parenting Survey IV: September 2021 (Washington, DC: Aspen Institute, 2021).

206

Ibid.

58

Historical Backgroundlarly outdoor sports, and 12.3% said that their com- SafeSport at a rate of no less than $20 million annuallymunity-based youth-sports programs expanded in grants, with NGBs and PSOs also responsible forcapacity as a result of the pandemic, creating new contributing funds each year.210
opportunities for participation.207
In addition to these amendments to the statute, theTHE EMPOWERING OLYMPIC,
Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur
Athletes Act recognized that further reform would
PARALYMPIC, AND AMATEUR ATHLETESACT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS
be required. To that end, it established a new, indeCOMMISSION
pendent Congressional commission to assess the U.S.
Olympic and Paralympic movement for the 2020s in
The same month that the Borders Commission re- much the same way that the President’s Commission
leased its report, Sen. Jerry Moran introduced the did in the 1970s. That body, this Commission on the
Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics (CSUSOP),
Athletes Act, which was aimed at improving safety, was granted not only broad parameters for its assessaccessibility, equity, and accountability in U.S. Olym- ment and its issuing of recommendations but also sigpic and Paralympic sports at all levels. That biparti- nificant authority to gather information from USOPC,
san legislation passed the House and Senate in 2020 NGBs, PSOs, athletes, and other stakeholders in order
and was signed into law on October 30 that year. It to inform Congress’s next steps.
drew on the findings and recommendations included in a report issued by Sen. Moran and Sen. Richard The Act established it as a fully bipartisan commission
Blumenthal on the hearings held and investigations composed of sixteen members, four each appointconducted by the Senate Commerce, Science, and ed by the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate
Transportation Subcommittee on Manufacturing, Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
Trade, and Consumer Protection.208 Their legisla- and the Chair and Ranking Member of the Housetion amended the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Energy and Commerce Committee. Each commitSports Act by: 1) granting Congress the authority to tee chair designated one of the four appointees as adissolve USOPC’s Board of Directors and decertify Co-Chair for the Commission. By statute, at least halfgoverning bodies on its own; 2) establishing a duty of the commissioners appointed were required to beof care owed to athletes by USOPC, including a re- Olympic or Paralympic athletes. By April 2021, allquirement to report child abuse immediately to law sixteen of the commissioners had been selected andenforcement; 3) providing the AAC with a more for- announced. 211 In order to ensure that CSUSOP could
malized role in the movement’s governance process- carry out its work, Congress authorized $2 million toes; 4) requiring a third of USOPC Board Members to fund it. However, this funding was not provided until
be drawn from the athlete community; 5) ensuring enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act
confidentiality and non-interference in athletes’ com- on March 15, 2022.212 The Commission approved themunications with the USOPC Office of the Ombuds selection of an executive director on January 17, 2023,
with regard to SafeSport claims; and 6) prohibiting re- which enabled the hiring of additional staff and thetaliation against those reporting abuse or harassment commencement of data and document collection by
and requiring reporting to Congress in the event of at- March 2023. The Commission was given a statutory
tempted retaliation or interference in a SafeSport in- deadline for completing its work by September 30,
vestigation.209 USOPC would also be required to fund 2023, with its final report due in the first half of 2024.
207

Ibid.

208

Moran and Blumenthal, “The Courage of Survivors,” July 30, 2019.

209

Pub. L. 116-189.

210

Ibid.

211 Two of the sixteen commissioners originally appointed declined to participate early in the process and resigned their positions, leaving
a fourteen-member Commission from April 8, 2023. As a result, these two former commissioners took no part in the Commission’s work.
212

Pub. L. 117-103.

Historical Background

While previous commissions and task forces established to evaluate and make recommendations for
the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement since1977 have all been initiated by and internal to USOPC,
this Commission is different. Not only was it createdby Congress to be fully independent; it was also vested with the power to “subpoena an individual thetestimony of whom may be relevant to the purpose of
the Commission”213 and a statutory mandate to assess the state of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics, particularly in ten areas. Moreover, Congress charged
CSUSOP with studying U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement-sports oversight generally, not to respond to just one crisis or challenge.
The Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur
Athletes Act tasked the Commission with the following:(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall conduct a study on matters relating to the state ofUnited States participation in the Olympic andParalympic Games.
(B) MATTERS STUDIED.—The study under subparagraph (A) shall include—(i) a review of the most recent reforms undertaken by the United States Olympic and Paralympic
Committee;(ii) a description of proposed reforms to the structure of the United States Olympic and Paralympic
Committee;(iii) an assessment as to whether the board of directors of the United States Olympic and Paralympic
Committee includes diverse members, including
athletes;(iv) an assessment of United States athlete participation levels in the Olympic and Paralympic
Games;(v) a description of the status of any United States
Olympic and Paralympic Committee licensing arrangement;
213

Pub. L. 116-189.

214

Ibid.

215

Ibid.

59

(vi) an assessment as to whether the UnitedStates is achieving the goals for the Olympic andParalympic Games set by the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee;(vii) an analysis of the participation in amateur
athletics of—(I) women;(II) disabled individuals; and(III) minorities;(viii) a description of ongoing efforts by the UnitedStates Olympic and Paralympic Committee to recruit the Olympic and Paralympic Games to theUnited States;(ix) an evaluation of the functions of the national
governing bodies (as defined in section 220501 of
title 36, United States Code) and an analysis of the
responsiveness of the national governing bodies toathletes with respect to the duties of the national
governing bodies under section 220524(a)(3) of title 36, United States Code; and(x) an assessment of the finances and the financialorganization of the United States Olympic andParalympic Committee.214
Though Congress delineated these ten matters thatmust be included, the statute does not limit thescope of the Commission’s inquiry, and specificallyrequests any suggested additional reforms:…The Commission shall submit to Congress areport on the results of the study… including adetailed statement of findings, conclusions, recommendations, and suggested policy changes.215
This authority provided our Commission with an ability to look holistically at the numerous factors thathave contributed to the present state of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement in an effort to generate
recommendations that bring the movement’s organization, whose fundamental structure dates to the60

Historical Background1970s, into alignment with the movement’s challenges
and needs in the twenty-first century.

bility; and 4) accountability. How well our nation
performs in these areas will ultimately determine
our ability to serve and empower athletes andMuch of the ethos behind the creation, structure, and place them at the center of the U.S. Olympic andmandate of CSUSOP came from a broad realization Paralympic movement, from the highest-performamong policymakers, those within the U.S. Olympic ing champions all the way down to those participatand Paralympic movement, and other stakehold- ing for the first time in youth and grassroots sports
ers that major reforms after 1978 were only under- in our communities.
taken in reaction to crises. None of those reform
efforts, though, reevaluated the whole structure of
how the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement
is organized. Moreover, internal efforts by USOPC
have not fully addressed systemic weaknesses thathave contributed to those crises over the years. In
many ways, the solutions to some of the long-term
challenges facing USOPC and the movement-sports
landscape it has been charged with overseeing may
be beyond the capacity of USOPC on its own. This
Commission’s creation and mandate constitute an
acknowledgement by Congress not only that athlete safety and well-being are public values but thatthe federal government has a critical role to play inprotecting them. Moreover, it is a reaffirmation that
Congress holds the ultimate responsibility to ensure
the effective oversight and successful promotion, coordination, and development of movement sports at
all levels in the United States.

This Commission’s creation and mandate constitute an
acknowledgement by Congress not only that athlete
safety and well-being are public values but that the federal
government has a critical role to play in protecting them.
This Commission’s months-long study, analysis,
and recommendation of policy changes provides
Congress with a once-in-a-generation opportunity
to revisit the system established by the Ted Stevens
Olympic and Amateur Sports Act in the wake ofthe last independent, governmental commission on
U.S. Olympic and Paralympic sports. In doing so,
the Commission focused on the ten specific areas
outlined in the Empowering Olympic, Paralympic,
and Amateur Athletes Act as well as on the broader criteria that best inform a critical evaluation of
how our nation structures its approach to sports
oversight: 1) safety; 2) equitable access; 3) accessi-

61

Findings
INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY
From the start, the Commission has understoodthat the conduct of our study would rely both on the
careful and comprehensive collection of objective
data as well as direct and candid engagement with
the individuals and organizations that constitutethe U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement. As an
independent body unbeholden to any of the stakeholders—including Congress—the Commission’s
ethos throughout has been to follow where facts
lead, to ask the most important and difficult questions, and to collect and analyze the information
provided to us without prejudgment. The successof our work has depended on the participation andcooperation of athletes, coaches, USOPC officials,
NGB and PSO staff, parents and guardians, educators, historians, policymakers, and other stakeholders across grassroots sports. The Commission
did not permit USOPC, USADA, SafeSport, NGBs,
PSOs, the Team USA Athletes’ Commission,216 or
any individual or organizational stakeholders tocollect and filter information on our behalf, instead
gathering testimonies, survey responses, and otherdata directly. The Commission thanks all those who
provided information that has been integral in carrying out our Congressionally mandated study as
outlined in the Empowering Olympic, Paralympic,
and Amateur Athletes Act of 2020.

Olympic and Paralympic movement’s challenges
and opportunities. Before setting out our findings
from this study, we will lay out in greater detail how
the Commission made use of each of these five research methods.

Under its authorizing legislation, Congress empowered the Commission to subpoena testimony and request information in support of our study. Individuals
and organizations were directed to comply with requests from the Commission’s Executive Director forthe provision of documents and other relevant information.217 On February 6, 2023, the Executive Director sent a letter asking USOPC, fifty-one independent
NGBs and PSOs, twelve internally managed sports,218
the Team USA Athletes’ Commission, SafeSport, andthe Los Angeles 2028 Organizing Committee (LA28)
to provide our Commission with any and all documents relating to the ten mandated areas of the Commission’s inquiry. (Additionally, USADA helpfully
offered documents to the Commission addressing its
operations.) All documents collected through theserequests were required to be provided using secure
online forms and uploaded onto secure government
systems with additional cybersecurity protocols andprotections. None of the information provided to theCommission was or will ever be subject to Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA) requests, and the CommisIn conducting this study, the Commission made sion has strived to maintain confidentiality and priuse of five main research methods: 1) the collec- vacy for all individuals whose information has beention of documents from individuals and organi- collected. An example of a letter from the Executive
zations; 2) direct interviews with individuals with Director making these document requests and therelevant knowledge; 3) survey analysis; 4) focus Statement on Commission Practices outlining thegroups composed of different sets of stakeholders; handling of received documents can both be found inand 5) a public hearing held on September 6 to Appendix III.
gather witness testimony. Each provided the Commission and its staff with insights that, when taken As a result of these requests, the Commission retogether, made possible a holistic view of the U.S. ceived tens of thousands of individual documents.
216 In 2023, the USOPC Athletes’ Advisory Council (AAC) renamed itself the Team USA Athletes’ Commission (AC), and this report willrefer to it by that name from this point onward.
217

Pub. L. 116-189.

218 The number of internally managed sports fluctuated over the course of our study; this represents the total number included in ourrequest for documents and other information.

62

Findings

They were, however, provided, unevenly, with some
NGBs or PSOs turning over comprehensive materials across the ten areas of study and others transmitting incomplete sets of documents or thoserelating to just one or a few areas. Some returned
documents in incorrect file formats, and others
missed the forty-day deadline. On July 10 and July13, 2023, the Commission made a second request
to organizations to furnish documents specifically
relevant to SafeSport interactions, safety concerns,
licensing, the U.S. host-city bid process, and financial records. These were areas in which the organizations had produced minimal documentation to
the Commission in response to our first request.

ticipants to answer a range of questions about theirexperience within the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
movement, it also provided them an opportunity toshare additional documents or testimony directlywith the Commission. The survey responses, as was
the case with the Commission’s policies relating to
document collection, were completely confidential
and not subject to the FOIA.

For the second survey, a broader examination ofAmericans’ understanding of and attitudes toward
the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement as wellas public views on movement sports, the Commission contracted with SurveyUSA. Aimed at identifying the degree of public knowledge about how the
The two requests for documents provided the Com- system operates and views on the availability, cost,
mission with a telling example of one of the major and safety of sports in their communities, this onchallenges facing the U.S. Olympic and Paralym- line survey was conducted by SurveyUSA between
pic movement: a lack of consistent participation in July 23 and July 25, 2023, with 1,000 respondents
accountability processes. While some NGBs and participating.
PSOs provided the Commission with reams of documents ranging from officials’ written communi- The Commission also engaged Hudson Pacific tocations and detailed financial accounting to inter- facilitate eight focus groups between June 26 andnal memos and athlete-development plans, others June 29, 2023. Each group was composed of beturned over relatively few documents with scant tween six and eight participants, drawn from a seinformation. The Commission was gravely disap- lection of those who either responded to the Compointed that some entities chose not to engage se- mission’s initial survey or who engaged individuallyriously with our study. Others, seemingly due to a with Commission staff to provide useful informalack of resources and staffing, could not fully com- tion and perspectives. The focus groups includply with Commission requests. Either way, we were ed both gender and ethnic diversity and featured
left deeply concerned that a key process for public both Olympic and Paralympic as well as summer
accountability appeared, for many, to be—at best— and winter athletes. The groups also included curan unwelcome burden.
rent and former officials from USOPC and NGBs/
PSOs, coaches, and a referee. The first group was
In addition to the document requests, the Commis- composed of youth-sports athletes and parents.
sion also conducted two surveys and analyzed their Over the course of the four days, Hudson Pacificresults. The first survey was conducted among 3,009 staff moderated discussions with two groups eachindividuals involved in high-performance sports on one of four topics: 1) Financial Issues; 2) Safety
within the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic move- Issues; 3) Organizational and Governance Issues;
ment. After designing the survey and its questions, and 4) Recent Reforms and Processes.
Commission staff shared it using lists of athletes,
retired athletes, coaches, executives, and staff pro- Furthermore, Commission staff held direct discusvided by USOPC, NGBs and PSOs, LA28, SafeS- sions with more than 700 individuals who sharedport, and USADA-affiliated sports organizations. information and insights relevant to our study.
The survey was open to respondents between May These included athletes, retired athletes, parents
2 and July 31, 2023, and steps were taken to ensure and guardians, coaches, executives and staff curthat each individual receiving the survey could only rently and formerly with USOPC and NGBs orcomplete it once. In addition to asking survey par- PSOs, current and former executives and staff from

Findings

63

USADA and SafeSport, personnel from HHS, in- • Donald Fehr, former Executive Director, Nadividuals involved with previous commissions andtional Hockey League Players’ Association andstudies relating to the U.S. Olympic and ParalymMajor League Baseball Players Association;
pic movement, and other movement stakeholders.
These discussions were conducted with confiden- • Ed Williams, Former Chair, U.S. Olympic andtiality, allowing for frank and candid disclosures
Paralympic Committee’s Athletes Advisory
to the Commission of past and current practices
Council;by different parties and organizations within the
movement and the offering of a range of sugges- • Chuck Aoki, Community Access Navigator,
tions for future reforms.
University of Michigan’s Adaptive Sports & Fitness Program and Three-time U.S. ParalympiLastly, in addition to receiving forty-seven coman;ments from the public submitted through theCommission’s website between April 17 and July • Jeff Mansfield, President, U.S.A. Deaf Sports
31, 2023, commissioners held a hearing in WashFederation;
ington, DC, on September 6, 2023, to receive bothoral and written testimony. This fulfilled the statu- • Candace Cable, Director of Community Outtory requirement for a public hearing by the Comreach, Resources, & Education at the Disabilmission; it also provided a unique opportunity for
ity Rights Legal Center and Nine-time U.S.
commissioners, staff, and all interested Americans
Paralympian;
to hear directly from athletes, sports officials, andstakeholders who offered assessments of recent re- • Travis Tygart, CEO, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency;
forms by USOPC and Congress as well as recommendations for additional steps to improve safety, • Dr. Vincent Minjares, Project Manager, Aspen
accessibility, equitable access, and accountability in
Institute’s Sports & Society Program;sports. Testifying at that hearing were:• Sally Nnamani, Co-Executive Director for the• Dr. Victoria Jackson, Associate Professor of
United States, PeacePlayers;
History, Arizona State University;• Jeremy Goldberg, President, LeagueApps; and• Sarah Hirshland, CEO, U.S. Olympic and• Tom Farrey, Founder & Executive Director, AsParalympic Committee;
pen Institute’s Sports & Society Program.
• Elizabeth Ramsey, Executive Director, TeamUSA Athletes’ Commission;
An additional witness, Dr. Katrina Piercy of HHS—
• Pat Kelleher, Executive Director, U.S.A. Hockey,
on behalf of the President’s Council on Sports, Fit& Chair, National Governing Bodies Council;
ness, and Nutrition—submitted written testimony
for the record. A full transcript and record of the• Ju’Riese Colón, CEO, U.S. Center for SafeSport;
September 6, 2023, public hearing can be found in
Appendix I.
• Grace French, Founder & President, The Armyof Survivors;
Along with these tools, the Commission drew on:prior reports and investigations; public statements• Scott Gray, Minnesota Hockey Safe Sport Coby individuals involved in the U.S. Olympic andordinator;
Paralympic movement; data published by the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition,• Marci Hamilton, Founder & CEO, Child USA;by the GAO and by other federal and state entities;

64

Findings

statistical data provided to us by the Sports andFitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) research department, the Aspen Institute, and other entities
that track national trends in sports participationand costs; information publicly available through
USOPC, NGBs, PSOs, USADA, SafeSport, the IOC,
the IPC, and other Olympic- and Paralympic-sportorganizations; as well as a range of scholarship andreporting in the form of books and articles addressing issues pertinent to the Commission’s study. In
digesting and analyzing the information gleaned
during this undertaking, the Commission has determined its findings in each of the ten mandated
areas of inclusion as well as in additional areas relating to its statutory mission. What follows are thefindings of the Commission’s months-long study ofthe state of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics, beginning with those central to the challenge of safetythat has been of critical concern to policymakers
and movement leaders in recent years.

a manner that was either “never timely” or “rarely timely.” Grace French, founder and President of
The Army of Survivors and a survivor of abuse in
sports herself, testified to the Commission during
our hearing that:
SafeSport has not been a support or place oftrust for athletes up to this point. The survivors
we talked to were all frustrated with the process
and felt there was no transparency, nor was
there good communication about their cases
and investigations. This extends to SafeSport’s
reputation in the sports world beyond.
Clearly, too many athletes do not see SafeSport asan ally. It is too often perceived, instead, as an obstacle to safe participation in movement sports.

This broad lack of trust—which the Commission
heard again and again in interviews, in hearing
testimony, and in documents shared with us—is
not surprising, given the caseload numbers that
FINDINGS
tell a story of an organization overwhelmed andFinding: SafeSport has lost the trust of athletes and under-resourced. In her testimony at the Comother movement participants as a result of a grow- mission’s public hearing, SafeSport CEO Ju’Riese
ing case backlog, cases remaining unresolved for Colón related that nearly 300 complaints werelong periods, and a policy of closing many cases ad- filed in 2017, the center’s first year operating underCongressional authorization. According to a GAO
ministratively.
study in 2020, SafeSport opened and resolved 3,909
In 2017, Congress authorized SafeSport and gave it cases during the period from February 2018 to Junea clear mission: protect athletes from harm and en- 2020.”219 In 2020 alone, we found that SafeSport reable them to feel safe. In its first seven years, SafeS- ceived 2,310 claims. In 2021, that number rose toport has failed on both accounts. The process for 3,708. During the first quarter of 2022, 1,396 claims
resolving cases and removing those found respon- were filed with the center, representing a 62.7%
sible for abuse and misconduct is not operating as increase over the previous year’s first quarter. Ms.
Congress intended, and, as a result, more than half Colón told the Commission in her testimony that“we’ve received more than 4,300 reports and are proof athletes do not trust SafeSport.
jected to hit 7,000 reports by the end of 2023. That
While 97% of high-performance athletes we sur- represents a 2,000% increase from 2017.” Marci
veyed agreed that it is important to maintain an Hamilton, founder and CEO of Child USA, sharedabuse-free environment, only 44% viewed SafeS- this bleak assessment with the Commission during
port as succeeding in that effort. Those athletes her testimony at the hearing:
who have directly interacted with SafeSport rated
At least 20% of girls and 8% of boys will be
it just 3.7 out of ten for satisfaction. Nearly half—
sexually abused by the age of eighteen in the
47.7%–of all movement participants who particUnited States. … Many victims need decades
ipated in a SafeSport resolution process felt thatto come forward… That is the reality of childits dispute-resolution process was conducted in
219

Larin, “Amateur Athletes,” U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2020.

Findings

sex abuse and young-adult sex abuse. For thatreason, I do not expect the reports to SafeSport
to go down. I think 7,000 is a very small number, given the millions of athletes. I expect it
to go up, and I expect the need for an effective,
preventive system to be of the highest priority.

65

Though case-resolution times under one year haveremained moderately stable since 2021, the number of cases open beyond a year has increased substantially on average. According to the 2020 GAO
study, SafeSport resolved 63% of cases within one
to three months during the period of February 2018
to June 2020. However, even at this early point inIndeed, in spite of its best efforts, SafeSport’s case SafeSport’s history, 14% of cases in that timeframe
backlog is increasing. Nearly every quarter since were open for longer than a year.220 In the first2017, overall incident-report submissions have quarter of 2022, SafeSport reported 907 open cases,grown, with the only significant drop occurring at more than 26% of which had been unresolved forthe onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
more than a year and more than half open for atleast six months. Moreover, 42.2% of all open cases
Meanwhile, the length of time needed to resolve at that time involved some form of sexual-misconsome of the most difficult cases has been growing. duct allegation. “The amount of time that a case is
220

Ibid.

66

Findings

open is a massive pain point for athletes, whether it closed administratively or jurisdictionally without a debe physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, under the termination.221 The 2020 GAO report observed:
jurisdiction of the center or an NGB,” one employee of USOPC’s Athlete Ombuds office shared inCenter staff explained that the Center can adone of our focus groups. The longer cases remain
ministratively close cases at various stages in theprocess and may reopen cases when previousopen, the greater the trauma for victims seeking
ly reluctant claimants reengage and are readyjustice as well as the agony for respondents awaiting a decision. Such delays also impact governing
to participate, or when additional information
bodies’ ability to keep participants safe from harmor evidence is learned. According to the Center’sin the local clubs and programs they oversee. “Thestandard operating procedures, jurisdictional asCenter’s response-and-resolution process is far too
sessments occur before a case is investigated. However, the Center may reassess its jurisdictionalslow,” our Commission heard in testimony from
Scott Gray, U.S.A. Hockey’s SafeSport Coordinator
decision at any time. If the Center declines to exerfor Minnesota Hockey. “…When the Center takes
cise jurisdiction over a matter in its discretionary
so long, participants in local programs can be subjurisdiction, the Center may refer the matter tojected to continued misconduct by the respondent
the appropriate sport’s national governing body.222
in those cases.” This has only further diminished
SafeSport in the eyes of those it was created to pro- Mr. Gray told our Commission:tect, deterring those who have experienced abuse
and misconduct from coming forward.
The high rate of administrative closure erodes confidence among our constituents to the extent that
A further challenge continues to be SafeSport’s pracconcerned participants and parents don’t wanttice of relying on administrative closures in an effort toto make a report to the Center, because they feelclear its caseload backlog. Between February 2018 andnothing ever happens.
June 2020, most cases under SafeSport’s review were
221

Ibid.

222

Ibid., 10.

Findings

Ms. French recounted the disturbing story of an
athlete whose case was closed by SafeSport without
a determination. She testified:
An example that I’ve been given permission touse is that an athlete who was going throughthe SafeSport process reported suicidal ideation to the U.S. Center for SafeSport. The U.S.
Center for SafeSport responded in one email
giving him a 1-800 number and then promptly
closed his case. There was no follow up fromthe U.S. Center for SafeSport. There was nothing after that.
As noted below (see pages 70-71), the Commission
found lapses in SafeSport’s use of trauma-informed
practices, which would appear to have occurred inthis case cited by Ms. French as well.
It is not only athletes who have expressed alarm about
these administrative closures and in whom trust is
being lost as a result. Officials from NGBs and PSOs
have also raised concerns about a lack of information
shared by SafeSport when cases are closed administratively. Among the documents the Commission reviewed was a June 2023 email sent from a SafeSport
official to personnel at National Governing Body 1223
to inform them that the center would assume jurisdiction over a case involving a claim by one of its athletes
alleging “bullying of a sexual nature.” In that sameemail—indeed, in the very next sentence—however,the SafeSport official notified National Governing
Body 1 that the case was also being closed administratively:
This letter is to inform [National Governing Body1] that, after review and consideration of the reported allegations, the Center is accepting jurisdiction and will resolve the matter pursuant to
the policies and procedures proscribed [sic] by
the SafeSport Code. This letter also serves to notify [National Governing Body 1] that the Centeris administratively closing this matter.

67

are not allowed to learn the underlying facts of theinitial complaint. Or, if we were already aware, theCenter’s exclusive jurisdiction prohibits NGBs fromtaking any action on their own.” Indeed, we cameacross a case in which National Governing Body 2,
to its credit, raised this issue directly with SafeSport and asked it to “consider [National Governing
Body 2’s] own rules… at least in cases where [National Governing Body 2] (or any other NGB) has
rules in place that specifically address the behavior and make the sanction against the respondent
greater than the sanction that might be issued by theCenter.” With governing bodies’ hands tied in thesecases, nothing further can be done to seek justicefor victims, to protect others in the sport, or toclear the names of those accused without merit.
Additionally, we heard from the USADSF—themulti-sport USOPC-affiliate organization that operates adapted competitions for deaf and hard-ofhearing athletes—that it does not receive any notification from SafeSport when its participants havecases closed administratively. Instead, only the NGBor PSO for that sport is notified, even though theparticipants may have reported through USADSF,
which also falls under SafeSport’s jurisdiction andhas personnel and processes in place to support theunique needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes
that NGBs and PSOs may not. The impact of SafeSport’s administrative-closure policies and theirheavy use has been far-reaching and contributed toa lack of trust in the system by athletes, coaches,and governing-body officials alike.
Finding: SafeSport’s lack of independent funding
has both hurt its credibility with athletes and led to
an incentive structure that deters victims of abuse
and misconduct from coming forward and filingclaims.

Perhaps the most direct reason, however, for abroad lack of trust in SafeSport that we heard over
and over again from athletes is the center’s dependence on USOPC for funding. Even after Congress
As Mr. Gray from U.S.A. Hockey told us in his tes- required USOPC to fund SafeSport with a minitimony, “NGBs are made aware of this result but mum guarantee of $20 million per year, SafeSport
223 For purposes of privacy and in accordance with stated Commission practices, the names of governing bodies and internally managed
sports throughout presentation of the report’s Findings have been redacted.

68

Findings

is still seen as a dependent entity, interconnectedwith USOPC and its leadership. When he appeared
before the Commission at our public hearing, CEO
Travis Tygart of USADA explained the link between
perception and trust:
You know, from an independent standpoint infunding, I think, I mean, obviously, the Center[for SafeSport] has, as I understand it, basically a $20 million guarantee, maybe with no orvery few strings attached. And, at some level,
I think that actually gives you complete independence. The appearance, however, and theperception that that money’s coming from theUnited States Olympic & Paralympic Committee, …it raises the issues of the fox actually guarding the hen house that I mentioned
previously. So, I think it’s really important forfolks to understand the sources of funding andwhat’s attached to that funding.
Consequently, the Commission investigated theway in which USOPC collects funding earmarked
for SafeSport, and we were deeply disturbed bywhat we found.

As detailed in financial statements shared with theCommission, USOPC charges each NGB or PSO abaseline contribution fee toward the statutory annual SafeSport funding requirement of $20 million.
As demonstrated in the table below, NGBs and
PSOs are divided into six tiers based on their annual revenues, and those in each tier are required
to pay a certain amount toward USOPC’s annual
funding for SafeSport. However, each NGB or PSO
is also charged a “high-use contribution” fee percase in addition to this baseline contribution—evenfor those in which SafeSport declines jurisdiction
and sends the case back to the governing body.
In response to a request for further information by
the Commission, SafeSport wrote that “the Center does not have any influence over how or why
the USOPC solicits contributions from individual
NGBs to support annual contribution.” According
to documents furnished to us by USOPC, NGBs
and PSOs are charged “high-use contribution” fees
even for cases that are closed administratively or
jurisdictionally. The table on page 69 shows thethree types of cases, according to USOPC, and theamounts charged to a governing body for each case.

69

Findings

As a result, NGBs and PSOs have an incentive to
reduce the number of SafeSport claims initiated byparticipants in their sports. The number of victims
discouraged from filing claims by their NGB or
PSO officials is unknown, but this incentive structure certainly does not lend itself to governing bodies supporting victims and removing those found tohave engaged in misconduct. This may be reflectedin an inconsistency by NGBs and PSOs in effectively communicating the right of any participant to filea claim directly with SafeSport instead of having to
do so first through one’s governing body. During
our study, the Commission also found that smaller
NGBs and PSOs were less likely to encourage participants to report claims directly to SafeSport.
Finding: In contrast to SafeSport, USADA has beena model of success when it comes to independence
and trust.
Throughout our comprehensive study of the U.S.
Olympic and Paralympic movement, the Commission continued to hear participants praise one
institution above all others for its fairness and its
efficacy: USADA. Athletes, coaches, and officials
trust USADA, they feel the agency communicatesits policies effectively, and they rate it as successful in delivering on its mission of fair play in sports.
While Congress did not directly charge our Commission with evaluating USADA, the pervasiveness of movement participants’ high esteem for theagency cannot be ignored, particularly when identifying leading practices for movement institutions.

Again and again, those with whom we spoke set
USADA as a model against which other movement
institutions were compared.
Athlete trust in USADA, we found, is substantial.
Among the high-performance athletes we surveyed, more than three quarters reported trusting
the agency—75.8%. That figure was even higher
for coaches—76.6%—as well as USOPC and governing-body executives and board members, morethan eight in ten of whom expressed trust in USADA. Meanwhile, in the same survey, nearly twothirds of athletes, coaches, and executives and staff
from USOPC and the governing bodies agreed that
USADA is successful in carrying out its mission.
This is a stark difference from SafeSport, in whichfewer than half of those surveyed expressed confidence to carry out its mission successfully.

One reason for higher trust in USADA,
the Commission believes, is its clear
financial separation from USOPC
and the governing bodies.
One reason for higher trust in USADA, the Commission believes, is its clear financial separationfrom USOPC and the governing bodies. Congress’s
direct support for the agency provides it with areputational advantage among the athletes served,
who understand that, from its very origins, USADA has never been dependent on other agencies or70

Findings

beholden to their leaders. SafeSport, on the other
hand, is known to be deeply financially integrated
with USOPC and the governing bodies, which plays
a role in shaping athletes’ view of its independenceor lack thereof.

ry out its mandate and work effectively for fairness
in sports. That record has certainly contributed tothe agency’s high levels of trust—again, in contrast
to SafeSport, whose expanding backlog and highrate of administrative closures, among other process concerns, have led to low levels of trust among
The Commission also found that 62% of high-per- movement participants.
formance athletes believe USADA is communicating its policies and processes effectively. When bro- The Commission appreciated that, even though
ken down by category—athletes, coaches, USOPC USADA was not directly under our review in theand governing-body staff, and USOPC and govern- ten areas of study specified by Congress, its leading-body executives and board members—more ership proactively shared documents and materials
than half in each group agreed. At our hearing, the with us and responded in full to our requests forCommission asked Mr. Tygart why this might be information. We encountered no similar lack of
the case. He pointed to an athlete-centered ethos transparency or aversion to accountability as weat the agency and a commitment by USADA lead- often experienced with other organizations withership and staff to ensure that all its rules are clear in the movement. In USADA we found an agency
and evenly applied. Mr. Tygart said:
not only acknowledging its public responsibility
to share information with Congress but one eager…I think having a fair, accountable, transparto prove its openness to oversight. This is likely aent, consistent process—whether you’re a globconsequence of having a significant part of its fundal icon like Lance Armstrong or a weekend
ing derived from Congressional appropriations
warrior under our jurisdiction, there’s no fearthrough ONDCP. With public support comes pubor favor in how the application of the rules
lic scrutiny. Congress has been a careful watchdog
happens.
over taxpayer funds, something USADA’s leadership clearly understands.
Clear lines of communication from USADA officials
to the athletes interacting with the agency, along with Finding: SafeSport has not fully embraced the kindthe athlete-serving attitude demonstrated by Mr. of trauma-informed practices that engender trust
Tygart, have clearly made a positive impact.
among athletes seeking help. Moreover, current
SafeSport arbitration rules have led to an unacceptAdditionally, as we have seen from USADA’s testing ably high rate of decisions being overturned in favorand sanction record, the agency is carrying out its of respondents.
mission. In the twenty-three years since Congress
first authorized it as the nation’s official anti-dop- In addition to concerns about its case backlog anding watchdog agency, USADA has tested more than perceptions about its independence, the Commis40,000 athletes. During that time, 770 athletes have sion also found that many movement participants
been sanctioned as a result of failing the agency’s feel that SafeSport has not fully embraced trautests, including both relatively unknown individu- ma-informed practices in its investigatory and disals and some of the most popular athletes known to pute-resolution processes. In her testimony, Ms.
millions of Americans. In high-profile cases, USA- French informed us that:
DA has loudly advocated at the World Anti-Doping
Agency and other international sporting organiStarting in May 2022, [The Army of Survivors]
zations on behalf of U.S. athletes believed to haveconducted a series of interviews with diverse
been wronged as a result of the use of banned subathletes across several different sports, genders,stances or practices by foreign competitors. Timeages, and levels of competition regarding theirand again, participants in the U.S. Olympic andexperiences with reporting sexual assault. All of
Paralympic movement have watched USADA carthese survivors tried to work through SafeSport’sFindings

71

process. We’ve gathered their testimony andfound some common, very disturbing themes.
Of most concern to me is the re-traumatizationthat survivors of sexual abuse have been subject to in the SafeSport process. Survivors havefelt ignored, silenced through do-not-disclose
agreements, had investigations that lingered foryears, and had no notice of actions taken by theCenter that could directly put them at risk of retaliation, and have not been supported througha trauma-informed approach.

That figure she cites—42% of appealed decisions—represents the share of cases before February 2022
in which an individual initially sanctioned by SafeSport asked arbitrators to overturn a ruling successfully or close it administratively. In some of thosecases, arbitrators made their decision after victims
declined to participate in the arbitration hearing andgo through another round of testimony and re-traumatization.224

In the same hearing, Ms. Hamilton from Child USA
noted that a lack of experience in trauma-informed
practices by SafeSport’s investigators and the independent arbitrators hearing appeals “has routinely
resulted in re-traumatization of the victims and reversal of well-founded claims.” Moreover, we founda broadly shared perception among participants inthe movement that SafeSport’s process disadvantages victims making claims and makes it harder toremove offenders from positions of power over athletes. Ms. Hamilton summarized this challenge inher testimony:

When abuse or other violations of the SafeSport
Code occur, athletes often encounter confusion
about how to report those violations and seek help.
That’s because pathways to report abuse and otherviolations of the SafeSport Code vary across NGBs
and PSOs. For example, as we found from internal
documents shared with the Commission in response
to our request for information, National Governing
Body 3 directs covered participants to report misconduct one of three ways: either through an online
form to the governing body’s safe-sport officials, bycontacting the NGB or PSO leadership directly byphone or email, or by reporting directly to SafeSport.
However, National Governing Body 4 instructs covered individuals to report violations only to the NGB,
making no mention of SafeSport as a reporting option. Though the SafeSport Code maintains that directly reporting to SafeSport is always available tothose initiating claims, not every NGB or PSO furnishes that information proactively to athletes andother participants. As noted above, smaller governing bodies were more likely, we found, not to provide information about directly reporting claims to
SafeSport.

Finding: It is often unclear to athletes how to reportabuse and other violations, with requirements varyWe were not at all surprised to hear Ms. French’s as- ing across the different governing bodies. Broadsessment. The Commission heard similar accounts misunderstanding of participants’ rights with redirectly of victims feeling re-traumatized by SafeS- gard to SafeSport processes is also an ongoing
port’s practices.
challenge.

Nearly half—42%—of the appealed SafeSportdecisions come out unfavorable to the victim.
When the athlete comes forward, they are guaranteed nothing. They are often told it is a confidential process, they may not talk to anybody,and they are given no report. Private arbitration for youth sex-abuse claims plays into thehands of perpetrators and the institutions thatcover up for them. It disables victims’ voices andleaves future athletes vulnerable to preventablesexual abuse. Numerous coaches that SafeSport
would have removed were permitted to returncoaching following arbitration without any official public record of the claims made against
them. At the same time, the USOPC was settling lawsuits involving the same perpetrators.

Moreover, not all participants understand which typesof misconduct fall within SafeSport’s jurisdiction andwhich do not. Ms. French told the Commission:

224 Dan Murphy and Pete Madden, “U.S. Center for SafeSport, Olympic Movement’s misconduct watchdog, struggles to shed ‘paper tiger’
reputation,” ESPN, February 23, 2022.

72

Findings

I think athletes that we’ve heard from are extremely confused about where to report first.
They do not understand who has jurisdiction,
and when, and I’ve heard from several athletes
that they believe the U.S. Center for SafeSportis only for sexual abuse, so if they’re experiencing physical or emotional abuse they feel as if
they don’t know where to go. Should they go to
the NGB? Should they go to the police? Should
they go to just the organization, the gym thatthey’re in?

Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policy or other similar Proactive Policy violations;Misconduct Related to Aiding and Abetting,
Abuse of Process, or Retaliation, when it relates to the process of the USOPC, an NGB, an
LAO,226 or any other organization under theCenter’s jurisdiction.227

This discretion over jurisdiction for certain types of
misconduct makes it unclear in many cases wherea victim can turn to make a claim and seek justice
According to the SafeSport Code, the center main- within the movement. It also makes it easier bothtains exclusive jurisdiction over:for governing bodies and for SafeSport to avoid responsibility and leave a claimant without redress.
1) Sexual Misconduct, including without limitation child sexual abuse and any misconduct
Throughout our study, we also heard from movethat is reasonably related to the underlying alment participants who discussed what they perlegation of Sexual Misconduct;
ceived to be their “due-process rights” or “legal
rights” in the context of SafeSport’s adjudication of2) Criminal Charges or Dispositions involving
claims and issuing of decisions. For example, one ofChild Abuse or Sexual Misconduct;
the participants in our focus groups shared his perception that SafeSport does not protect the rights of3) Misconduct Related to Reporting, where thethose involved in its claim process. “They need due
underlying allegation involves Child Abuse orprocess for everyone involved,” he said. “And I don’t
Sexual Misconduct;
think there’s due process on either side. Whoever getsinvestigated doesn’t have due process, and I don’t4) Misconduct Relating to Aiding and Abetthink the victims get due process either.” SafeSport,ting, Abuse of Process, or Retaliation, when it
however, is not a fully governmental entity, and itis, therefore, not required to provide Constitutionrelates to the Center’s process;al-level due-process protections, as a court would.
5) Other Inappropriate Conduct, as defined
While many participants perceived themselves tohold such “due-process” rights in SafeSport pro[elsewhere in the Code]225
ceedings, that is not the case.
Meanwhile, SafeSport holds discretionary jurisdicThe Commission found clear gaps in understandtion over five other categories of misconduct:
ing among individuals across the movement as to
SafeSport’s status as an entity that investigates misNon-sexual Child Abuse;
conduct and only determines whether or not an
Emotional and physical misconduct, including
individual can participate in movement sports. We
stalking, bullying behaviors, hazing, and haalso discovered misunderstanding around SafeSrassment;
port’s standards for issuing bans and suspensions.
While many with whom we spoke presumed that
Criminal Charges or Dispositions not involva ‘beyond-a-reasonable-doubt’ standard applies,
ing Child Abuse or Sexual Misconduct;
which is the case in criminal proceedings, the ac225“SafeSport Code,” U.S. Center for SafeSport.

226

Local Affiliate Organization.

227“SafeSport Code,” U.S. Center for SafeSport.

Findings

tual standard used by SafeSport is much lower, requiring only finding a violation of the Code by a‘preponderance of evidence.’ Such lack of clear understanding and awareness of SafeSport’s legal status, as well as the obligations and protections thatmust be afforded to those who are a part of theirproceedings, has contributed to feelings of mistrust
in SafeSport’s processes by athletes, coaches, andothers who may believe the center has either overreached or not gone far enough in certain cases.

73

nars and trainings.” Another focus-group participant from National Governing Body 1 said of SafeSport training: “It’s not going to keep bad people frombeing bad people. They’re probably in youth sports
for a reason—because it’s a target-rich environment
for them. And SafeSport training isn’t going to makethem any better as people.” In a positive, though, we
did find that some governing bodies have taken it
upon themselves to enforce rules about SafeSporttraining and other safety education courses more
rigorously. In one notable instance, National GovFinding: SafeSport’s training and education pro- erning Body 2 carefully tracks compliance by memgrams are insufficiently effective.
bers with required background checks and safety trainings, and it mandates that all coaches and
The seriousness and effectiveness of SafeSport’s officials at sanctioned events clearly designate on
training programs have also elicited concerns from their uniforms if all their safety training has beenacross the movement, we found. Ms. French shared successfully completed.
from The Army of Survivors’ recent study “thatcoaches and families are concerned that the train- Congress heard testimony in 2018 from then-AAC
ing [SafeSport] provided was not tailored to each Chair Han Xiao, one of this Commission’s Cosport and did not include prevention, a prevention Chairs, that “in some sports, receiving a SafeSport
approach, or a trauma-informed lens.” One of the ‘certification’ for completion of training is a mere forwomen in our focus groups, affiliated with Nation- mality that can be granted upon viewing a video or
al Governing Body 5, criticized SafeSport’s “1980s having someone pick up their certificate for them.”228
mentality of how you educate people through webi- Based on the evidence the Commission has seen,

228“Testimony of Han Xiao,” July 24, 2018.

74

Findings

this does not appear to have changed. With 30.2%of the high-performance athletes we surveyed assessing SafeSport overall as ineffective and another 39% citing it as only somewhat effective, thesefigures at least somewhat reflect a negative view of
SafeSport’s training programs, which constitutes
most movement participants’ primary interactions
with the center and its processes.

precautions at an event where SafeSport auditors
are expected to be present, this system shortchanges safety at events where auditors are known aheadof time not to be conducting inspections. This creates an uneven safety landscape and facilitates thecovering-up of violations that threaten athletes’
and other participants’ safety. Moreover, the Commission’s research uncovered no follow-up mechanisms for failed audits during our study other thanFinding: SafeSport’s event-auditing procedures limit emails between SafeSport and NGBs or PSOs indieffective oversight of safety practices.
cating required policy changes. There was neither
evidence of action on such policy-change requireFurthermore, the Commission identified flaws in ments, additional audits, nor clear enforcement
SafeSport’s audit mechanism for governing bodies, tools to bring governing bodies into compliance.
specifically in the advance warning given to NGB
and PSO officials that undermines proper over- Finding: Lack of awareness of its Centralized Discisight and accountability. Currently, SafeSport pro- plinary Database has impacted participants’ trust invides up to two-weeks advance notice to NGBs and SafeSport as an institution.
PSOs for audits of competition events, which creates non-ideal audit conditions by allowing govern- Another reason SafeSport has lost trust acrossing-body officials to attend and carefully manage the movement is that so few are aware of one ofwhich individuals are available to answer questions its most important undertakings: the Centralized
from SafeSport auditors. While there is certainly a Disciplinary Database. Ms. Colón noted in her tesbenefit to NGB and PSO officials stepping up safety timony to our Commission that “Today, the names

75

Findings

of more than 1,900 [sanctioned or banned] individuals appear on this list, which any local sports
league, youth-serving organization, or employer caneasily access on our website.” In our survey, 41% of
high-performance athletes did not even know of its
existence. A third of coaches were unaware of the
publicly searchable database. Parents of children
in youth sports, thankfully, reported higher awareness, though just at 52%. Only one third of the general population reported being aware of SafeSport’s
database.

quirements that make our organizations leaders in their respective sports. Given establishedrequirements and that leaders of NGBs areworking hard to meet those requirements, NGBs
currently provide the safest environment for the
youth sport experience. … Sadly, we are awarethat children can participate in sports with other organizations that not only fail to offer any
abuse prevention training nor limit one-on-one
interactions with minor athletes, and they permit SafeSport-banned coaches to participate.229

Ms. Colón testified that SafeSport had invested in The many private sports organizations—both
publicizing the database and using search-engine for-profit and not-for-profit—that are not affiloptimization (SEO) tools to ensure that movement iated with NGBs or PSOs, and thus do not fallparticipants could find it on SafeSport’s website. under SafeSport’s jurisdiction, provide no re“The Centralized Disciplinary Database,” she told course for participants or their families to reportus, “is actually the only piece of our website that is misconduct to SafeSport. If SafeSport cannot inupdated every day… and that happens at least once vestigate claims and issue sanctions, those who
a day.” The Commission, however, having reviewed perpetrate abuse and other forms of misconduct
SafeSport’s website and updates during the course cannot have their names added to the Centralof our study, did not find this to be true. Moreover, ized Disciplinary Database. “Loopholes need to
we found a general perception that the database be closed,” one focus-group participant from Nawas ineffective both because of the many cases lan- tional Governing Body 6 told us, “where a coachguishing in SafeSport’s slow investigation process can move to unsanctioned competitions and stilland because not all programs in our nation’s frag- be part of them, still be participating in the sportmented, pay-to-play youth-sports landscape fall basically every single day…” Another told us:
under SafeSport’s jurisdiction.
“The two biggest offenders that I know of are stillcoaching. Nothing’s ever happened to them.”Finding: The fracturing of the youth- and grassroots-sports landscape in our country has placed This situation has not occurred in a vacuum. It canathletes at risk. Even those participating in govern- be seen as a direct consequence of USOPC’s inabiling-body affiliated programs, however, may be less ity to fulfill the dual mandate given to it by Consafe due to inconsistent rules concerning SafeS- gress under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur
port’s jurisdiction.
Sports Act—and, consequently, its decision to focus nearly exclusively on high-performance, medChanges to America’s youth- and grassroots-sports al-capable athletes at the expense of investment inlandscape over the past several decades have con- and attention to youth and grassroots development.
tributed to reduced safety for participants. In June The rise of a youth-sports industry featuring large
2022, NGB Council leadership wrote, in a letter ac- numbers of sports organizations unaffiliated withgoverning bodies has brought new safety risks forcompanying a report to Congress, that:
all who participate.
Many NGBs are facing increased competition
Even youth-serving organizations affiliated withfor participation in their respective sports. This
NGBs or PSOs, however, may not provide particis happening under the premise that it is easiipants with sufficient protection, as many still fall
er for non-NGB sport organizations to operate
outside SafeSport’s jurisdiction. Whether a local
outside of the USOPC and governmental re229

Pat Kelleher and Li Li Leung, “Report to Congress,” National Governing Body Council, June 2022.

76

Findings

affiliate organization operating on the ground levelof youth sports does or not depends on the individual governing body to which it is linked and on thatgoverning body’s definition of a local affiliate organization, a category not specifically defined or addressed in the 2017 Protecting Young Victims from
Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Act.230 While thestatute places “amateur sports organizations” under SafeSport’s jurisdiction, there is ambiguity as towhether NGBs’ or PSOs’ local affiliates constitutesuch “amateur sports organizations” or whether
only programs run directly by the governing bodies
qualify. Each NGB or PSO has made its own determination as to whether its local affiliate organizations must report to SafeSport and whether theirpersonnel constitute “covered individuals” for the
purposes of the statute.231

trust across the movement, the Commission foundthat most participants do not wish to see it dismantled. There were certainly dissenting views; one
focus-group participant from National Governing
Body 9 stated very clearly that she believed “SafeSport cannot be fixed and shouldn’t. Nobody should
spend any time trying… it’s such a nightmare.” Weheard passionate arguments on both sides of thisquestion. However, the overall picture was one ofhopefulness that SafeSport’s problems could be
addressed and that the center could inspire trust
among those it serves. One participant from National Governing Body 6 told us: “I think everyone
knows it just needs to be improved and refined, andthey are doing good things.” Half of the respondents
in our movement survey agreed that SafeSport wasmeeting its goals, and 70% of athletes indicated that
it was at least somewhat effective as an institution.
The 2018 House Energy and Commerce Commit- A woman from Paralympic Sports Organization 1
tee report on sexual abuse in sports raised con- in one of our focus groups perfectly captured thiscerns about such inconsistency across the NGBs conflicted attitude when she said: “I do believe
and PSOs with regard to defining who is a “cov- SafeSport is necessary, but I also think it’s broken.”ered individual.” The report included an extensive
table with the categories of individuals considered When she appeared before our Commission, Ms.
“covered” by each governing body, with a wide di- Colón acknowledged SafeSport’s shortcomings andvergence among them. While some, like National pledged to do better:
Governing Body 7, shared extensive lists that inWe know that there are participants in our recluded staff, contractors, volunteers, coaches, refsponse-and-resolution process who felt it waserees, medical personnel, and more, other NGBs
not trauma-informed, that there was poor
or PSOs, such as National Governing Body 8, only
listed paid staff, board members, athletes, and few
communication, or it simply took too long. …
others.232 This disparity has led athletes in certain
We’re actively reviewing how we can shorten
leagues and programs wishing to open a complaint
resolution times, provide more information towith SafeSport surprised when the center issues a
NGBs, particularly around administrative clocursory jurisdictional closure, and it can deter othsures, and solicit additional resources to growers from coming forward with claims if they believe
our investigative staff. More importantly, ourthe same will occur.
door is open to those who want to help us improve. We are dedicated to strengthening what
Finding: In spite of its challenges, most participants
we’ve built, making the Center better and morein the movement do not wish to replace SafeSport
accessible to athletes throughout the country.
but want to correct its shortcomings and strengthen it for the future.
SafeSport’s creation also addressed a critical needamong the governing bodies. As Mr. Gray told us
Though SafeSport is not, at present, fully meeting from his experience with U.S.A. Hockey:
its mission and has lost a significant amount of
230

Pub. L. 115-126.

231“Nassar and Beyond,” U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

232

Ibid.

Findings

I believe the creation of the U.S. Center for
SafeSport was a necessary and important stepin assisting us to appropriately respond to thesechallenges. From the start, the driving forces
behind creating the Center were the need forthe most serious cases to be investigated andresolved by an independent third party rather
than the NGBs—and to have that third party
include the necessary capability and expertise.
Although I continue to strongly believe that theCenter is an integral part of the safety landscape, I also believe that substantive changes
in its practices and procedures must occur toimprove our ability to respond to and resolve
misconduct in a fair and timely fashion with all
aspects of due process taken into consideration.

The framework established in 1978 is unable
to keep pace with today’s challenges.

77

While SafeSport remains at the center of discussions of safety, safety concerns are directly related
to broader problems with movement governance.
The protection and well-being of athletes and allparticipants depends not only on a robust watchdog agency but on ensuring a successful framework
for movement sports that incentivizes safety, access,and athlete empowerment across the system. The
framework established in 1978 is unable to keep
pace with today’s challenges. As a result, our Commission found, the youth- and grassroots-sports
landscape in our country has changed dramatically and fragmented, leaving millions unprotected,
keeping many would-be participants out of the system, and endangering America’s long-term talentpipeline for Olympic and Paralympic champions.
At the Commission’s public hearing, ArizonaState University sports historian Victoria Jackson explained:

The need for an institution within the movement…the [Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur
like SafeSport is clear. Indeed, 87% of Americans
Sports Act] charges the USOPC with a dual
in our public survey agreed that it is importantmandate to lead both the narrow apex,
for sports organizations to prioritize the safety ofhigh-performance elite Olympic and Paralymathletes, coaches, and staff. Sadly, as one of our fopic sports, and the massive base: grassroots-,
cus-group participants from National Governing
community-, and youth-sports of the pyramid.
Body 10 told us, there is still much misconduct toDespite this charge, operationally, the USOPC
uncover and address: “I don’t think people really go
has held a narrow focus on Olympic and, to athrough the sport pipeline,” she said, “from kids tolesser degree, Paralympic success. …The many
professional Olympic level, without having at leastpressures to prioritize top-of-pyramid success,some indirect connection to abuse in sport.” Just
coupled with the absence of funding or incenover seven years old in its current form, SafeSport
tives to support grassroots, have meant thatis an organization still growing and finding its footthe USOPC has only ever been successful ining. Though much work is required to sturdy it, thefilling half of its dual mandate.
foundation for SafeSport already stands. With theproper reforms, SafeSport has the potential to be- The result, as she noted, has been “the explosive
come the kind of safety watchdog that movement growth of a pay-to-play, privatized youth-sports
participants expect and deserve.
world, making the American sports ecosystem not
one of sports for all, but one of restricted accessFinding: Since 1978, USOPC has been unable to and privilege.” Jeremy Goldberg, whose company
achieve its Congressional mandate to “coordinate LeagueApps oversees an app-based youth-sports
and develop” youth and grassroots sports across management platform, summarized in his testimothe country, which has led to the development of a ny much of what the Commission found over the
youth-sports landscape that has hampered safety, course of our study:
limited equitable access, and jeopardized our longterm Olympic and Paralympic pipeline.
Youth sports is no longer largely driven by volunteer-led community organizations compris-

78

Findings

ing the majority of member organizations thatare associated with national governing bodies.
Instead, the youth-sports industry is really in atransition from a hobby to a profession. … To
be sure, the organizations with greater capacity are investing more in coaching and training
and safety, and the vast majority are well-intended and deeply committed. But it’s also
clear there is no coherent youth-sports systemin this country. First, there is a lack of governance with no real structure or standards
that stewards youth-sports experiences in thiscountry. Instead of the COVID pandemic offering a moment to re-establish the leadershipand influence of governing bodies in association, the crisis crystallized their lack of authority, resources, and capabilities, which reveal
itself every day in the inconsistencies aroundsafety and quality. Second, there is a widening gap in terms of access to sport for underserved communities. The youth-sports sector
is severely under-resourced, both in terms ofgovernance but even more so at the local levelin terms of organizations, programs, and playspaces.

access movement sports in their communities. In
his remarks bringing up the 1978 legislation for consideration by the full Senate, then-Chairman of the
Senate Commerce Committee Howard Cannon listed what he and the other sponsors of the bill saw as
USOPC’s mandate:
First, the bill restructures the [USOPC] so thatit can serve as the coordinating body for the development of amateur athletic activity in the
United States.235
The Commission notes that the coordination and development of what we now term grassroots sports
were seen as the first priority. In that same Senate
debate, Sen. Ted Stevens, the bill’s chief author, stated:
One of the most important functions of the revitalized [USOPC] is to promote and encourage physical fitness and public participationin sports. This legislation is not a bill merely toassist Olympic and “elite” athletes. Far from it.
I am hopeful that with the new goals and directives for both the [USOPC] and the national
governing bodies it will be easier for all Americans to find programs and facilities throughwhich they can further their athletic interests.236

Today, the youth-sports industry in the United Stateshas been valued with a market size as high as $30 billion.233 It has grown rapidly, having been previously
estimated at $15.3 billion in 2017.234
Sen. Stevens went on to address a provision in theoriginal bill that would have appropriated $30 milCongress’s intention, however, was never for youth lion in public funding to USOPC to assist with “itssports and our Olympic and Paralympic pipeline to expanded responsibilities and in furtherance of the
become commercialized to the point where access objects and purposes of this act”237—that is, the adand safety are dependent on participants’ ability to dition of its new mandate to coordinate and develop
pay, turning athletic competitors into customers. youth and grassroots sports nationwide. He madeWhen Congress granted USOPC responsibility over clear:both supporting high-performance athletes heading to the Olympics and Paralympics and developMany national governing bodies are presently
ing grassroots sports across the country, the underunderdeveloped and financially unable to prostanding was that USOPC would allocate resources
vide adequate programs, not to mention generto ensure that Americans of all ages could equitably
al information to the general public. Programs
233

Erik Spanberg, “Youth Sports: Supply. Demand. Access,” Sports Business Journal, May 1, 2023.

234

Sean Gregory, “How Kids’ Sports Became a $15 Billion Industry,” TIME, August 24, 2017.

235

Amateur Sports Act of 1978, S. 2727, 95th Congress, 2nd sess., Congressional Record 124, pt. 10: 12853.

236

Ibid., 12854.

237

Ibid.

Findings

79

Finding: USOPC allocates far less funding to support
grassroots development in the movement sports
pipeline than it reports, even according to its own
Congress, however, did not end up including that ap- definition of “grassroots” development.
propriation in the final enacted legislation. To thisday, it has refused to provide any public funding to Evaluating USOPC’s responsibility to “coordinate
support USOPC’s dual mandate, even while contin- and develop” movement sports at the grassroots
ually recognizing the public benefit and public value level required an examination of how much it actually allocates toward helping governing bodies
of Americans’ access to movement sports.
maintain and expand youth and community proFor decades, USOPC leaders have asserted—accu- grams in their sports. The central challenge therately—that they were handed an impossible task. Commission encountered in analyzing grassroots“We cannot be all things to all people,” its CEOs have investment by USOPC and the governing bodies isrepeated to policymakers since the Ted Stevens that we did not receive consistent or detailed finanOlympic and Amateur Sports Act was first signed cial documentation from them outlining spendinto law. Consequently, without sufficient resources ing in support of grassroots development, evento carry out both halves of its mandate, USOPC of- after repeated requests. When documents were
ficials were forced to make difficult decisions about shared with the Commission, it was not always
how to invest the limited funding earned mainly clear whether funding listed in annual financial disfrom licensing of trademarks. Instead of spreading closures labeled as being for “grassroots” developresources thinly everywhere, they chose to focus ment was truly for that purpose or really just foron what they believed would have the biggest pub- high-performance talent recruitment. Moreover,lic impact: helping Team USA win more medals “grassroots” has always been an amorphous term,internationally. Certainly, Team USA athletes per- and the Commission first needed to understandforming better increases the value of the Olympic how USOPC and the governing bodies define it inand Paralympic trademarks; consequently, revenues their financial records.
from licensing the trademarks rise as our high-performance athletes inspire Americans through their Thankfully, “grassroots” has indeed been providsuccesses. As USOPC’s licensing revenues have in- ed a standard definition within the movement
creased over the years, though, we have not observed by USOPC. That can be found in the glossary ofa shift toward more (or much of any) investment in USOPC’s public Sports Benefits Statements, ishelping millions of Americans access movement sued each year to summarize spending by NGBs
sports in their communities. There is currently little and PSOs in pursuit of their priorities. In the stateincentive to shift that focus.
ments issued from 2019 through 2022, the most recent available, the glossary entry reads:
Even so, USOPC continues to tell Congress that it
is doing its best to fulfill both parts of its dual manGrassroots: Actual cost of coaching education
date. However, it has been clear for a long timeand development programs in support of thethat USOPC invests far less funding in the develAmerican Development Model.
opment of youth and grassroots sports than it doesin high-performance athletes. The Commission While each governing body follows a slightly diflooked carefully at this issue as a metric by which ferent incarnation of the American Development
to measure USOPC’s commitment to carrying out Model, at its core are eight ascending stages ofboth parts of its Congressional mandate.
age-appropriate coaching, play, and competition.
Starting with learning to be active as a young child,the stages culminate in Olympic and Paralympic
training for high-performance athletes and learnwill be developed so that their membership andfinancial support can be expanded.238

238

Ibid., 12855.

80

Findings

Category I: Spending that supports open
competitions, training opportunities, events, or
capacity-building for local affiliate organizations
for the purpose of expanding and increasing
youth-sports participation.
Category II: Spending that supports somebroad-based youth-sports participation, but
includes spending for closed competitions,
governing body membership support, or
resources to further high-performancedevelopment at the youth and junior levels.
Category III: Spending labeled as “grassroots,”“sports development,” or broadly defined“membership services,” that cannot be separated
from governing bodies’ administrative costs,
closed competitions, the development ofpathways for high-performance athletes, otherhigh-performance-related expenses, or coachtraining and education.

ing tools for lifelong enjoyment in a sport for everyone else. This definition of “grassroots” sports
encompasses both what most Americans would
identify as youth and grassroots participation andthe kind of high-performance talent identificationand development that falls under USOPC’s statutory mandate to cultivate U.S. Olympic and Paralympic talent. As such, USOPC has been able to include much of its investment in high-performancedevelopment under the label of “grassroots” development, making it difficult for observers to parseexactly how much funding it has directed toward
each side of its dual mandate.

the governing bodies list funds allocated towardgrassroots development, but when examined closely they break down into three categories. The firstincludes spending for open competitions, training
opportunities, events, or capacity-building for local
affiliate organizations for the purpose of expanding
and increasing youth-sport participation.239 Examples may include partnerships with schools, parks
departments, or non-profit organizations and specifically do not include spending on high-performance programs aimed at developing talent for national teams. These align with activities found by theCommission to have direct and identifiable positive
impacts on the development of youth and grassIn order to determine how much funding USOPC roots sports across the country. The second category
and governing bodies are truly allocating toward the covers closed competitions, governing-body memcoordination and development of youth and grass- bership spending, or resources to further high-perroots sports, the Commission looked closely at fi- formance development at the youth and juniornancial documents both provided to us and made levels—though it still covers projects or spending
available publicly. In these documents, USOPC and that can be traced back to local efforts to increase
239 This first category includes all funding provided directly by governing bodies to affiliates’ local clubs in the form of grants. While theCommission was unable to determine spending in detail at the club level, these are the organizations responsible for facilitating youth andgrassroots participation in the most straightforward way. Even if some of these governing-body grants to local clubs are used for administrative purposes, the Commission interprets those as essential to maintaining the direct youth and grassroots services that clubs provide.

81

Findings

broad-based youth participation. The third includes
spending that may be labeled as “grassroots,” “membership services,” or “sport development” but cannot
be separated from governing bodies’ administrative
costs, closed competitions, the development of pathways for high-performance athletes, broadly defined
member services, coach training and education, orother high-performance-related expenses. In short,
only the first category of “grassroots development”
spending that we identified unmistakably covers thekind of youth and grassroots projects envisioned by
Congress in the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur
Sports Act.
The Commission analyzed financial documents from2021 for the thirty-one governing bodies that satisfied at least one of these definitions of “grassroots-development” spending in order to understand moreclearly the balance of investments by USOPC in its
statutory responsibility to “coordinate and develop”
youth and grassroots movement sports in America. That year, we found, total spending by governing bodies labeled as investment in “grassroots” activities neared $108.2 million.240 However, of those
funds, spending in the first category—representing
what our study identified as actual direct investment
in grassroots development—amounted to just over
$3 million. The median grassroots spending per governing body in that category was just $89,724. Meanwhile, the Commission found that USOPC barely
invests at all in helping governing bodies develop
their sports at the grassroots level. In total, USOPC
directed just $92,231 toward just ten governing bodies in 2021 to support grassroots development in anyof the three categories outlined above. In addition tothis funding, USOPC allows governing bodies andcertain national affiliates to apply for up to $5,000 inannual “Grassroots / American Development Model” grants, which are “designed to provide select NGBs
with [American Development Model] and Coaching
Education support.” Otherwise, the Commission was
unable to identify any other funding from USOPC to
the governing bodies directly supporting grassroots
development.
For para sports, the Commission found little to no
grassroots-development funding at all coming from240

USOPC. In one example, the 2022-2025 High-Performance Plan for a para team operating under thesupervision of National Governing Body 1, notesthat “the club level continues to have struggles with
developing athletes to a competitive international
level…” and that “there is no USOPC direct support
to club athletes.” The same document listed as aninternally identified weakness: “limited resources tofund development and grassroots programs.” In one
example of the scope of need for USOPC support,
National Governing Body 11 indicated in its 2022
strategic plan that it would seek between $15,000
and $25,000 in assistance from USOPC to launcha Paralympic recruiting program. This is just one
governing body among dozens, and with USOPC
having sent less than $100,000 in direct grassroots-development support in total the prior year,
it is easy to see how these needs are going unmet.
While the Commission asked USOPC to provide us
with detailed financial and other information about
the internally managed sports under its purview,which include several para sports, we were provided almost none. As a result, we cannot responsiblyinfer any conclusions regarding USOPC’s level of
support for grassroots development in internallymanaged Paralympic sports.
Such lack of investment in youth and grassroots
para sports has an even more detrimental impact
on the high-performance pipeline, perhaps, thanin non-para sports because of the higher costs
associated with participation. As three-time U.S.
Paralympian Chuck Aoki noted in his testimony,echoing what we heard from others from the U.S.
Paralympic community:
I think the reality is that for any adapted athlete,
whether you’re a wheelchair user or visually impaired or anything of that nature, you’re going torequire specialized equipment which, you know—
you can’t buy it at a regular store. You have to order it special-made. There’s only several manufacturers in the world that make them, and they’reoften, you know—the cost is in the thousands ofdollars just for equipment. And, particularly, foryouth athletes they’re growing. Their bodies arechanging, and they have to constantly do it, and so,This figure includes a $50 million outlier from one governing body in grant spending.

82

Findings

in addition to the burden of having added expenses from having a disability, you then stack on topof it even being able to participate in recreational
activities, adds even further burden of money.

The amounts above, it should be clarified, reflect
only USOPC-originated funding sourced fromthe monopoly on Olympic- and Paralympic-related trademarks granted to it by Congress. The figures do not include funds for grassroots developFor young Americans with disabilities, full of talent and ment distributed by governing bodies in the form
drive, a lack of necessary support from the movement of grants—to local affiliates and other communiall too often keeps them out of the movement. This is ty-serving organizations—whose revenues were
detrimental to our Paralympic talent pipeline as well as derived from NGB or PSO membership dues ora lost opportunity for broadening the positive impacts participation fees. Without robust support fromof sport in our communities. It is no surprise that we USOPC, the governing bodies primarily rely on
found that only 54.8% of Americans were aware that dues and fees to support their youth and grassroots
USOPC plays a role in coordinating and develop- programming, further entrenching a pay-to-play
ing youth and grassroots sports in the United States. system. This is one of the reasons the Commission
USOPC has been all but missing from the field of play. found growing concern among governing-bodyofficials about membership falloff in many sports,

Findings

particularly during and after the pandemic. A drop
in membership bears serious implications both forcarrying out a governing body’s mission of broadening participation as well as for the revenues thatsustain their operations, including these grants.

83of the affiliate groups may be invited to join the governing body’s board of directors. One example ofthis can be found with National Governing Body 13,
which requires one affiliate club representative andone competitive athletic representative for each registered club on its board. National Governing Body

The Commission also found these grants
to be unevenly available. For example,
It is no surprise that we found that only 54.8%
governing bodies like National Governof Americans were aware that USOPC plays aing Body 2 and National Governing Body
role in coordinating and developing youth and
12 have substantial grassroots-developgrassroots sports in the United States. USOPC
ment grant programs, through which
has been all but missing from the field of play.
annual revenues from membership dues
and competition fees help support initiatives to increase access to the sport. In 2021, Na- 14 provides each of its local affiliate organizations
tional Governing Body 13 donated $113,525 to its with four voting board representatives—two coachfoundation in order to fund grants for the growth es, one administrator, and one athlete. Other govand development of local clubs and to promote erning bodies following this model include National
diversity. However, we also identified more than a Governing Body 2 and National Governing Body 15.
dozen governing bodies and at least one internally Additionally, National Governing Body 16 requires
managed sport where no such grassroots-develop- its board members to be registered with one of its afment grants exist.
filiated regional associations—and it maintains thatthree directors must themselves serve on regional
Finding: Governing bodies differ greatly in how they affiliates’ boards. With so much programming reorganize governance and deliver services aimed at sponsibility handed to local affiliate organizations,
youth and grassroots participants.
the Commission found an alarming inconsistency among governing bodies with the potential to
While the structure of investment by USOPC and impact quality of service, accountability, and clear
governing bodies in youth- and grassroots-sports communications with participants and their families
development provides one measure of the imbalance about policies concerning safety and athletes’ rights
between the two parts of USOPC’s statutory mission, and well-being.
another can be found in the way NGBs and PSOs
deliver services to participants and organize their Finding: As USOPC withdrew from its mandate to “coown governance. Governing bodies, by and large, ordinate and develop” youth- and grassroots-sports,
outsource their youth and grassroots programs to participation levels in movement sports nationallocal affiliate organizations. These affiliates are sepa- ly have dropped, with the pandemic exacerbating
rate entities that oversee services to member-partic- gaps in access. Fitness and activity levels have also
ipants of the governing bodies, and in return for the been impacted.
exclusive right to do so they must agree to abide bycertain rules—including SafeSport jurisdiction.
In evaluating whether USOPC has been effective atmeeting its dual mandate, the Commission also looked
Each NGB and PSO maintains its own model for closely at participation data and trends for youth andgovernance, and those appearing to hold a more grassroots sports across the country. A 2019 study byserious attitude toward facilitating closer communi- the Aspen Institute and Utah State University notedcations and furthering grassroots development have a striking decrease in the number of children ages six
implemented a representational model that inte- through twelve participating in sports between 2008
grates these affiliate groups into their decision-mak- and 2018, with a drop from 45% to 38% during that deing processes. Under such a model, representatives cade as well as a national average age of just ten-and-84

Findings

a-half years old when a child quits sports.241 Physicalfitness also declined by 6% over that time, and only afifth of girls—compared to 28% of boys—were meeting
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s
recommendation for daily physical activity. Indeed,obesity rates among American youth have surged from
5.5% in 1980 to 19.3% in 2018.242

sport in 2021.243 The report also shared that nearly one in five parents indicated that their children
had lost interest in sports during the pandemic,
and these parents saw this attitude as a barrier totheir children’s return to playing.244 The Commission was alarmed at the SFIA 2023 Topline Report,
which showed that 68.6 million Americans were“totally inactive” in 2022, representing 22.4% of the
In its 2022 follow-up report, the Aspen Institute overall population not participating in any sports
found that the pandemic saw an even further drop or fitness activities during the year.245 Though inin youth-sports participation, with just 37% of chil- activity rates have been trending downward overdren ages six through twelve playing on a team the past few years, the rates for those in age groups

Image Source: CDC/NCHS National Health & Nutrition Examination Surveys
241“State of Play 2019: Trends and Developments in Youth Sports,” The Aspen Institute: Project Play, 2019.

242 National Center for Health Statistics, National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1976-1980 and 1999-2018, accessed May 24,
2023.
243

“State of Play 2022: Participation Trends,” The Aspen Institute: Project Play, 2022.

244

Ibid.

245

“Topline Participation Report 2023,” Sports and Fitness Industry Association, 2023.

Findings

85

Note: Income type is household income.
Image Source: Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) Topline Participation Report 2022

18-24 and 25-34 years old moved in the opposite
direction in 2022.246

President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition held a listening session and heard from Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services AdEven with inactivity rates decreasing across all miral Brett Giroir that the average cost nationallyhousehold-income levels, sharp disparities remain for a child participating in one season of a single
between those at higher and lower incomes. Near- sport was $400, and sports participation declines
ly 40% of those from households earning less than as young Americans graduate into middle and high$25,000 a year experiencing total inactivity, com- school.248 According to the Aspen Institute’s data
pared to just under 14% for those in households from 2022, the annual cost of one child’s primaryearning at least $100,000 annually.247 In 2019, the sport is $883 on average for a family in the United

246

Ibid.

247

Ibid.

248 “Listening Session for the National Youth Sports Strategy: Meeting Minutes,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Officeof Disease Prevention & Health Promotion, President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, & Nutrition, April 4, 2019.

86

Findings

States.249 Depending on whether a family lives ina rural, urban, or suburban community, this figure
could range anywhere between $650 and $1,300 ayear.250 In our focus groups, we heard from parents
about the impact of high costs on youth-sports participation, particularly in some of the more-expensive sports with specialized equipment and training. “It just tells you,” one of these parents lamented,“how many American families just simply don’t haveaccess to the sport.”
In 2019, HHS, led by the President’s Council on
Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition, published its National
Youth Sports Strategy, which drew on research confirming that participation in youth sports is associated with lifelong higher physical activity, better healthoutcomes and lower health-care costs, reduced stressand incidence of mental health challenges, improved
educational and career achievement, and other myriad benefits.251 The development of our current payto-play youth-sports system, in which not all programs are sanctioned by governing bodies and held tothe highest standards or subject to SafeSport protections, makes it harder for American families to accessthese many benefits from youth-sports participation.
It is difficult to observe national trends in participation and physical activity levels, the fragmentationand commercialization of the American youth-sports
landscape, and USOPC’s severe underinvestment inyouth- and grassroots-sports development and not
make a connection. While it is impossible to provecause and effect, it is certainly reasonable for Americans to draw a link between these conditions and an
inadequacy of the framework established by the Ted
Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to deliveron its promise. The consequences, however, extend
not only to the sports fields and playgrounds where
young Americans first engage with movement sports;
it will be felt too on the podium at future Olympic andParalympic games.
249

Finding: USOPC’s decision to focus away from its
mandate to “coordinate and develop” youth andgrassroots sports has had a negative impact on our
long-term Olympic and Paralympic talent pipeline.
Not only has USOPC’s inability to carry out its dual
mandate curtailed access for youth and grassroots
participants today, it is shortchanging our ability
to win Olympic and Paralympic medals tomorrow.
During the course of our study, the Commission
heard a great deal from coaches, athletes, and othermovement participants about the positive impactsof multi-sport sampling on the development of
future Olympians and Paralympians. Contrary to
popular belief, early specialization by children inparticular sports has not been shown to advantage
them later; rather, the risks of such specialization
have been demonstrated to include quitting sports
entirely at an early age as a result of burnout or injury.252 Multi-sport sampling, or allowing children
to engage at their own level of comfort in a varietyof sports that teach differing physical and cooperative skills, is now considered the gold standard indeveloping future champions.
In a review of studies conducted between 1990 and
2021, researchers determined that “most sports
demonstrate better performance after youth multisport engagement.”253 In 2017, researchers at the University of Connecticut found multi-sport sampling
to be associated with better neuromuscular control
and a reduction in injury risk.254 Since 2015, somegoverning bodies and professional sports leagues
have begun encouraging multi-sport sampling atleast through age twelve. In one noteworthy example,
National Governing Body 17 has implemented a goalof promoting greater physical literacy among youth
participants, shifting the focus from winning to skills
development. By embracing multi-sport sampling aspart of the American Development Model, USOPC“State of Play 2022: Cost-to-Play Trends,” The Aspen Institute: Project Play, 2022.

250“Parenting Survey: Fall 2022,” The Aspen Institute: Project Play, 2022.

251“National Youth Sports Strategy,” 2019.

252

Jayanthi Neeru, et al., “Sports Specialization in Young Athletes,” Sports Health 5, no. 3, May 2013, 251-257.

253 Maddison McLellan, Sachin Allahabadi, and Nirav Pandya, “Youth Sports Specialization and Its Effects on Professional, Elite, andOlympic Athlete Performance, Career Longevity, and Injury Rates: A Systematic Review,” Orthopedic Journal of Sports Medicine 10, no. 11,
November 2022, 1-10.
254 Lindsay DiStefano, et al., “Sport Sampling Is Associated With Improved Landing Technique in Youth Athletes,” Sports Health 10, no. 2,
March/April 2018, 160-168.

Findings

has also acknowledged its importance as a key ingredient in our nation’s Olympic and Paralympic
pipeline. However, by abdicating its responsibility
to “coordinate and develop” that pipeline to a mixof under-resourced NGB and PSO affiliates and unaffiliated private-sector companies, USOPC has enabled the continued rise of a youth-sports industry
in which multi-sport sampling is disfavored and early-age specialization is widely practiced. The Commission views with alarm this trajectory that riskseroding U.S. performance in international competition in the years ahead.
In the aftermath of the 1977 President’s Commission report, Congress believed it could reorganize
the movement in such a way that it would produce
more medals for America and craft a well-definedtalent pipeline for the future by engaging more of
our people in sports, all without spending a dime.
As Tom Farrey testified to our Commission, “it wasan unfunded mandate, and within a few years the
USOPC was telling Congress explicitly that it can’t
both get Americans off the couch and onto the podium, that it lacked the resources and the authority
to do so.” Congress should have listened. Over time,
the problem has only grown, made even more difficult to address—and even fully understand—owing
to insufficient transparency and public oversight of
USOPC and other movement institutions, particularly in financial matters.
Finding: There is a serious lack of transparency andpublic accountability in the finances of USOPC andthe governing bodies; nevertheless, the imbalance
between what USOPC and governing-body executives earn for their work, compared to the athletes
they serve, is readily apparent.

87

to submit detailed financial statements beyond what
they make publicly available annually through the Internal Revenue Service Form 990. We were given tensof thousands of documents by USOPC and governing
bodies, yet very few of them shed meaningful light on
the organizations’ finances. This lack of transparency
has become a problem for accountability, making itvery difficult for Congress and the American people
to understand exactly how USOPC—a Congressionally chartered quasi-governmental entity given exclusive authority over coordinating a key aspect of life
for our nation and in our communities—is allocating
its resources.
What the Commission was able to uncover in its analysis of USOPC and governing bodies’ finances is astark imbalance in priorities, one in which millionsof dollars are being directed to their executives in theform of high salaries and bonuses while many of thehigh-performance athletes striving to win America glory at the Olympics and Paralympics are barely
getting by. In 2018, after former USOPC CEO ScottBlackmun stepped down in the aftermath of the cover-ups of sexual abuse, he received a severance payment of $2.4 million in addition to collecting his basesalary and a bonus of more than half a million dollars
that year.256 Current CEO Sarah Hirshland was compensated just over $1 million in 2021, inclusive of basesalary and bonuses. Since her first full year as CEO,her base salary has increased by more than 45% (as of2022). During that same period, base salaries for executives at USOPC increased nearly 35%.

A Washington Post exposé in 2016 revealed that one
U.S.A. Swimming executive was paid $854,000, theCEO of U.S.A. Triathlon had an annual income of$362,000, and the coach of the U.S.A. Rowing teambrought in $237,000 a year. None of the athletes
The Commission took very seriously Congress’s direc- they were training earned more than $42,000, andtive that we provide “an assessment of the finances and many saw less than $20,000 in annual stipends.257
the financial organization of the United States Olympic The reporting also highlighted a 2008 bronze-medand Paralympic Committee”.255 From the beginning of alist in judo forced to live out of her car. Meanwhile,
our study, we asked USOPC and the governing bodies according to tax disclosures reviewed by the Com-255

Pub. L. 116-189.

256

Jere Longman, “U.S. Olympics Chief Received $2.4 Million Severance Amid Scandal,” The New York Times, July 3, 2019.

257

Will Hobson, “Olympic executives cash in on a ‘Movement’ that keeps athletes poor,” The Washington Post, July 30, 2016.

88

Findings

Findings

89

90

Findings

Findings

mission, USOPC’s Chief of Athlete Services was
paid more than $670,000 in 2021. 258 Also that year,
National Governing Body 18 approved a $50,000
bonus for its CEO, whose salary reached $243,333.
That NGB paid its senior-most coach $249,969 as
well.259 Similarly, National Governing Body 19 provided its CEO with $441,334 in compensation in
2021,260 and the CEO for National Governing Body
20 earned a $52,630 bonus on top of his $185,014
salary.261

91

moreover, these individuals can bring guests with them,
paid for using USOPC funds. Potential conflicts of interest are vetted through the board’s ethics committee,though this Commission could not determine precisely how this committee is composed or how it operates.
Similarly, we did not receive enough information to understand fully the selection criteria, makeup, or operations of the board’s compensation committee, whichapproves salary increases for USOPC executives.

In their 2019 investigation, Sen. Jerry Moran and Sen.
Under current USOPC rules, board members and Richard Blumenthal noted the impact of these execcertain executives can be reimbursed for travel to and utive-compensation practices on athletes’ trust in thefrom the Olympic and Paralympic games. Since 2020, system. They wrote:

258 Internal Revenue Service, 2021, “Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee.”259

Internal Revenue Service, 2021, “Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: [National Governing Body 18].”260

Internal Revenue Service, 2021, “Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: [National Governing Body 19].”

261

Internal Revenue Service, 2021, “Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: [National Governing Body 20].”

92

Findings[USOPC’s] bloated and top-heavy organizational structure has created significant angst
and anger by the athletes that support executives’ exorbitant salaries and excessive perks.
The Subcommittee spoke with athletes frustrated by the fact that despite their high salaries,
executives seemed to actually be doing little
to put athletes first and implement necessary
and overdue reforms. Among their concerns
were first-class travel and fine dining afforded
to top officials and executives, while athletes
have few benefits, including no health insurance or coverage that is contingent on performance in competitions.262

nated its allocation of resources. Instead, we had torely mainly on the insufficient information USOPC
provided, on what has been publicly disclosed and reported, and on what we could gather from speaking
with current and former officials, athletes, coaches
and other movement participants. Without a reliablemechanism for studying and analyzing the detailed finances of USOPC and the governing bodies, Congress
and the public will never really be able to determine
whether movement institutions are truly “athlete-centered” and accountable to their statutory mission.

Finding: High-performance athletes in the movement are struggling financially, impacting their ability to focus on training and competition on behalf of
In light of that assessment five years ago, we under- the United States.
stand why Congress tasked our Commission with
providing “an assessment of the finances and financial We were, however, able to collect a trove of information
organization”263 of USOPC. If Congress had provid- concerning the financial situation of athletes advancing
ed our Commission with earlier funding and a lon- through America’s Olympic and Paralympic pipeline.
ger timeframe in which to conduct our inquiry, we In our survey, the Commission found that only half ofmight have been able to compel USOPC to turn over high-performance athletes training to represent theadditional documents that may have further illumi- United States in international competition received

262

Moran and Blumenthal, “The Courage of Survivors,” 15.

263

Pub. L. 116-189.

Findings

any kind of monetary earnings for their efforts. Those
who did report participation-related income indicated several sources, including stipends, awards, bonuses, and sponsorships. While 44% of the reported
income came from stipends from USOPC or governing bodies, just 11.5% came from sponsorships. Someathletes, though, receive limited non-monetary support
in the form of housing, food, and other expenses whenpresent at training camps or sanctioned events and programs. While 59.1% of the USOPC and governing-body
executives and board members surveyed reported
earning more than $150,000 annually in income, morethan a quarter of current athletes—26.5%—shared thatthey earn less than $15,000 a year. When looking at total household income, we see that 30.3% of current athletes in the movement fall into the $150,000-and-above
bracket, which highlights how much athletes often relyon their family to support them as dependents during
their years of training and competition. This figure also
reinforces our finding that family income and wealthare key factors in making movement-sports participation accessible (see pages 111-112).

93

Injuries have also taken a financial toll in addition
to a physical one. More than four in ten athletes reported out-of-pocket medical expenses relating totheir training and competition, with an approximate
average cost-per-athlete of $9,200. Only 16% told us
they had received reimbursements for these medical
expenses.
Athletes also continue to face high costs as a result ofmembership dues and competition fees. More thannine out of ten athletes reported paying these duesor fees, at an approximate annual cost to each participant of $21,700, on average. We did find, though, a
positive example of a governing body reducing competition fees after feedback from athletes. Following
the solicitation of input from participants, National
Governing Body 21 lowered its competition fees for
its youth, junior women’s, and junior champs teams
by as much as 40%.
A host of other associated costs place enormous burdens on talented athletes striving to climb the ladder,94

Findings

including the private coaches and trainers recom- ing under our flag. It is a testament to their dedicamended by NGBs and PSOs to top prospects. One tion that most still do so even knowing the cost.
athlete from National Governing Body 22 told us:
Finding: Most athletes report insufficient financial
At one of my first competitions, I won state, andsupport from USOPC and their governing bodies,then was paired with a USOPC Team USA
which negatively impacts performance. Even during
Olympic coach, who I paid out of pocket at sevthe pandemic, when officials received high comenteen or eighteen years old. So that was $500
pensation and bonuses, many athletes lost their ina month while I was going to college. Aroundcomes, forced to rely at times on crowdsourcing.
age twenty, I made the national team and won
nationals and started doing really well. And
In order to help close this gap, USOPC claims toso those seasons from, basically, age twenty toprovide funding to support their high-performancetwenty-five cost $6,000 to $7,000 a month.
athletes each year. The Team USA Athletes’ Commission has called into question USOPC’s athParalympians and those aspiring to represent our lete-support expenditures, though, as it has notnation in the Paralympic Games continue to face been allowed to review line-by-line spending to vereven higher costs as a result of often-expensive ify that all of these funds are actually being used forspecialized equipment and training. A visually im- that purpose—and athletes have had no direct say inpaired alpine skier whose husband competes with how this money is allocated. Indeed, our Commisher as a sight guide told Business Insider in 2014 sion was unable to make that determination either,that they spent a combined $90,000 per ski season based on the limited access we were given to interon training, specialized equipment, travel to com- nal USOPC and governing-body financial documenpetitions, and child care.264 One two-time paratri- tation. Of all high-performance athletes surveyed,
athlon gold medalist noted in 2021 that her training six in ten told us they received no reimbursements
costs in the years leading up to Paralympic compe- from USOPC or their governing bodies for any dues,
tition were “easily in the hundreds of thousands” of fees, health-insurance premiums, travel to compedollars.265
titions, or other expenses incurred. It’s no wonderthat only 28% of participants we surveyed across the
In one notable positive, National Governing Body U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement—current
15 now provides all athletes who qualify for its and former athletes, coaches, staff, executives, andOlympic team with a bonus of $15,000; those on the board members—believe USOPC raises and allorelay team only receive a $7,500 bonus. This means cates funding adequately.
that those Olympic athletes in the sport who do not
medal and receive Operation Gold payments can During the COVID-19 pandemic, nonprofit orstill receive funds to help offset the costs of train- ganizations across the country experienced lower
ing to reach that level. This provides extra peace of revenues and desperate budget shortfalls. USOPC
mind as they focus on reaching the highest level of and the governing bodies were among them, withhundreds of millions of dollars lost to cancelled orcompetition.
postponed competitions. In March 2020, as ConNevertheless, the Commission found that the aver- gress was preparing its emergency supplemental
age net financial burden on an American high-per- appropriation that would become the CARES Act,266
formance athlete is just shy of $12,000 per year. This USOPC asked lawmakers to include $200 million
means that, effectively, many of America’s most tal- with the argument that it was needed to support
ented athletes must pay for the privilege of compet- struggling athletes. Of that amount, $50 million
264

Tony Manfred, “The Harsh Financial Reality of Being a Paralympic Athlete,” Business Insider, January 10, 2014.

265

Ibid.

266

Pub. L. 116-136.

Findings

95

would go to USOPC directly and the
The Commission found that, even while the pandemic
rest would be sent to the governing
267
bodies. Congress did not oblige.
affected their revenue streams and many athletes
The Commission found that, evenlost their incomes, USOPC and governing bodies still
while the pandemic affected their
paid bonuses to their executives.
revenue streams and many athletes
lost their incomes, USOPC and governing bodies still paid bonuses to their executives. well. While a creative solution, the need for this priDuring this same period, USOPC reduced the pay- vate, outside support highlights the insufficiency ofments it sent to some NGBs and PSOs for athlete the current funding model that Congress has set. It
support and other purposes. Certain governing bod- also has been far from enough to address underlying
ies opted to shift funds away from athlete stipends, challenges. The Commission heard unnerving testisuch as National Governing Body 17, which moved it mony in our interviews and focus groups and read
toward coaching expenses. Whether this was to sup- striking accounts from athletes about the financial
plement coaches’ lost wages as a result of reduced hardships they have endured. A participant in one
hours from the pandemic or for some other reason of our focus groups expressed the uncertainty andthe Commission is uncertain. However, we were anxiety that so many of her fellow high-performance
concerned to see this same movement of funds away athletes share:from support for athletes and toward assistance tocoaches at other governing bodies as well. This may
I just know when the season starts… I’m notindicate a concerted effort during the pandemic toable to work my two jobs; I have to cut back toprovide relief to employees at athletes’ expense. It is
my one job where I coach remote. I developed
important to note as well that USOPC must approve
an eating disorder... just from having so muchall changes to high-performance plans, including reanxiety and stress from not knowing if I was goallocation of funding.
ing to be able to pay rent or, like, making ends
meet…
When asked at the Commission’s hearing about the
disparity between high executive pay and low finan- An athlete from National Governing Body 23 told us:
cial support for athletes, Ms. Hirshland responded:
You’re not going to make it financially if you
Let me say very clearly, there is no question thatare not roughly in the top twenty in the world.
Team USA athletes deserve greater financial
There’s not a large group of people who reallyreward for their performances, and we’re workmake a living... It’s a per tournament thing, so
you’re living from tournament to tournament.
ing extraordinarily hard, in our philanthropic
community predominantly, right now to do evIf you have a bad tournament, you might be
struggling to pay the bills the next month or so.
erything we can to raise funding for exactly that
purpose.
One parent of an athlete noted how crowdsourcing
Indeed, the charitable U.S. Olympic and Paralym- has become a preferred way of trying to make up
pic Foundation has become a major source of fund- that $12,000 annual average shortfall. He observed:
ing for athletes to fill the gap where Congress has
You know, what do athletes do today? It’s Gonot provided USOPC with appropriate resources.
FundMe, friends and family. Put your hand out.
This includes advanced technology platforms for
It’s a joke. It’s an absolute joke, representing thehigh-performance athletes’ training, educational
national team with a world ranking on a world
programs, and career assistance. Some receive addichampionship team or Olympic team.
tional financial support through the Foundation as
267 Will Hobson, “USOPC asked for $200 million in the coronavirus stimulus bill to ‘sustain American athletes,” The Washington Post,
March 26, 2020.

96

Findings

Indeed, one athlete from National Governing Body
5 made clear the link between financial insecurity
and performance:
I see … anxiety around revenue generation
constantly and having to hustle to get thosemonies coming in. And wouldn’t it be nice ifthat kind of stress wasn’t always hanging overeveryone. And the money wasn’t as much of aworry, so that we could focus on the task, which
is supporting and allowing athletes to become
the best in the world?
The toll of USOPC’s imbalance of financial priorities
on athletes’ well-being is clear and distressing. Even
though we were unable to parse in detail USOPC’s
expenditures on athlete support, what we have seenfrom their results paints an unmistakable picture ofa system that has failed athletes. Leaving athletes under-resourced places stress and strain on them thatcannot possibly further the mission of empowering ourathletes to win—and, in the Commission’s assessment,
it jeopardizes our long-term Olympic and Paralympic
performance against rising global competitors.
Finding: High-performance athletes face inconsistencies in access to quality health insurance as they
move between different sports contexts.
We also saw evidence that certain policies have had astrain on athletes’ well-being, including concerns about
access to quality health-insurance coverage. During
our study, the Commission found dangerous inconsistencies in athletes’ access to health insurance and thatsports context matters a great deal when it comes toeligibility, duration, and extent of coverage. In the collegiate setting, many athletes are often covered under
their parents’ plans or through their institutions ofhigher education. For those over age twenty-six or who
cannot be covered by a parent, graduation often means
losing access to coverage unless a high-performanceathlete is able to qualify for USOPC’s EAHI plan.
Many of our nation’s highest performing athletes benefit from EAHI coverage through USOPC, and theCommission views the implementation of this program since the early 2000s as a positive development
for athlete well-being. However, a number of athletes
indicated to the Commission that problems exist bothwith communication to athletes about EAHI policies
as well as with gaps in coverage. Some of these cameto public attention in 2014 when high-performanceathletes enrolled in EAHI had to be exempted by theCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services from penalties that would have been imposed because program
did not provide sufficient coverage under the Affordable Care Act, such as for prescription drug benefits
or certain preventive services. The program’s coverage
had to be expanded the following year to meet minimum federal standards.268 Since then, concerns about
coverage have focused on injuries, which remain a constant concern for athletes in any sport context.
The Commission found that EAHI policies outline
strict limitations on what constitutes a “covered” athlete as well as “covered” activities that could lead to injuries. When an athlete with EAHI engages in training
on personal time or outside of an event or competition
sanctioned directly by an NGB or PSO, EAHI policies
make it clear that injuries are not covered. According
to the EAHI 2022 Benefits Guide, an example of an
injury not covered by insurance is “an injury sustained
while independently exercising not specifically related toyour sport (i.e. a cyclist suffering an ankle sprain whilerunning in the evening vs. riding a bike).”269 Such a gap
in coverage makes little sense for athletes expected tomaintain a high degree of fitness and to engage in different forms of physical training even outside formal
sessions with a coach or trainer. This also runs counterto the goals and ideals of the American Development
Model, which embraces multi-sport participation asa means toward athletes’ development of advanced
sports skills. In another, even more jarring example,
the program does not cover chronic conditions directly
resulting from injuries sustained while participating directly in movement sports. “Chronic injuries,” the Benefits Guide advises, “such as a shoulder injury sustained
during an NGB sanctioned competition 14 months previously” are not covered.270

268

Lena Sun, “Olympic athletes’ health plan fails to meet Affordable Care Act rules,” The Washington Post, April 11, 2015.

269“USOPC Elite Athlete Health Insurance (EAHI) Program 2022 Benefits Guide,” U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, 2022.

270

Ibid.

Findings

The Commission heard from athletes who enduredinjuries that limited or ended their participationin high-performance competition—affecting theirability to earn income from stipends, sponsorships,
or medal bonuses—yet received no EAHI coverageeven to pay their medical expenses. At the sametime, we are aware of substantial settlements madeto athletes in professional leagues whose injuries
prematurely ended lucrative playing careers. Moreover, the Commission found that many high-performance athletes hire trainers from outside their
NGBs or PSOs—sometimes even at their governing bodies’ recommendations—to provide supplementary services as they seek to hone their skills. In
some cases, governing bodies do not provide training services directly and require athletes to seekoutside trainers. Injuries from training in this context are not covered under EAHI. Though we did
not encounter direct evidence of this, it is easy to
imagine that some athletes are forced to choose between safety and health-insurance coverage if they
have to decide between using an outside trainer orcoach who is trusted or a governing-body-sanctioned coach or trainer who may be abusive or using outdated and injury-prone methods. That is achoice no athlete should be forced to make.

97

and losing EAHI coverage four times in the spanof six months. Some told us that full-time coverage
was an option for those who could live and train at
certain USOPC or governing-body training centersfull time. This, however, is a benefit accessible to
only the few athletes who can afford to give up outside employment to do so. Dangerously, the Commission also learned about an athlete who diedfrom suicide after having EAHI coverage removed
and no longer being able to access mental-healthcare. Indeed, it was clear to us that EAHI coverageis one of the first benefits athletes lose when governing bodies engage in cost-saving measures.
Finding: As athletes move between different sports
contexts, their access to sponsorship opportunities
change; as a result, when participating in movement
sports, many athletes are required to sign away key
rights. Additionally, athletes’ interests are not taken
into consideration in the negotiation of licensing
agreements benefitting USOPC and the governing
bodies, impacting athletes’ earnings and competition performance.

In addition to affecting athletes’ access to health-insurance coverage, constant movement among sport
contexts has impacted athletes’ sponsorship opporThe maintenance of eligibility for EAHI is also a tunities as well as their obligations under licensing
challenge for athletes. While participating in the agreements negotiated between USOPC or theircontext of movement sports, high-performance governing bodies and sponsors. With a strict pubathletes can become eligible for coverage by their lic mandate but without public funding, USOPCNGB or PSO if they reach a stated level of perfor- and the governing bodies have had to seek operatmance in certain qualifying competition events ing revenues mainly through licensing agreements
during the year. We heard from athletes who told with businesses wishing to associate themselves
us how, under certain governing bodies, one only and their products with America’s Olympic andbecomes eligible for coverage by qualifying for the Paralympic champions and aspirants. As a result,
Olympic or Paralympic team; however, qualifica- much pressure is placed each year on USOPC andtion trials occur just weeks before the games them- governing-body executives to find and maintainselves, with coverage ending once the games are sponsors and secure lucrative licensing agreements.
over. This meant only a month or two of coverage While such agreements can produce financial benfor some high-performance athletes under EAHI efits for athletes, they are relatively small and often
during the four-year quadrennium of training. In come with burdensome conditions, negotiated andother sports, we found that governing bodies only agreed without input from athletes themselves.
extend EAHI eligibility to those termed “A Team”
athletes—as opposed to those assigned to the “B The main avenue by which individual athletes canTeam” or “C Team” in a sport at the top levels of generate sponsorship revenue is by licensing thecompetition. One athlete who moved among these rights to their names, images, and likenesses (NIL).
teams over the course of a year told us of gaining For a famous athlete with a large national fan base,

98

Findings

licensing of NIL rights can attract highly lucrative
sponsorship agreements. Most athletes, however,will never see anything close to that level of sponsorship. Indeed, only 11.5% of high-performanceathletes participating in the U.S. Olympic andParalympic movement reported earning any sponsorship revenues at all, according to our survey.
Currently, without any consistency under law, athletes’ NIL rights depend on the sport context inwhich they are engaged. Athletes in professional
leagues maintain NIL rights under law as individuals engaged in commercial activity. Group licensing
is negotiated on behalf of athletes by the various
players’ associations. After many years of debate,
the NCAA recognized its athletes’ NIL rights inJuly 2021. While opponents had contended that allowing NIL rights at the collegiate level would benefit popular sports like basketball and soccer at theexpense of many smaller Olympic and Paralympic
sports, licensing deals and figures indicate that thischange is already benefiting athletes from acrossthe sports landscape.271

gal representation during that process regardless.
Athletes frequently relinquish their NIL rights unknowingly, agreeing not to seek or accept earnings
from their participation outside of stipends fromtheir governing bodies or medal bonuses throughOperation Gold. National Governing Body 14, forexample, maintains a strict policy concerning individual sponsorships. Its bylaws state:...any financial advantage which a competitor
gains based on athletic fame and/or competitive results must be approved by [National
Governing Body 14]. An athlete may control
personal gains based on athletic fame after
notifying [National Governing Body 14] andextending first right of refusal to licensees of[National Governing Body 14] before accepting sponsorships.

We found similar examples from other governing
bodies as well. As athletes move from collegiate to
Olympic or Paralympic competition and back again,
as so many do even in the course of a single year,
they are forced to navigate a shifting landscape ofUnder the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports NIL rights and obligations, usually without proper
Act, USOPC and governing bodies hold exclusive legal guidance. It is likely that many income-genrights over licensing and sponsorships. In 2018, erating opportunities for individual athletes andGold Medal LLC v. USA Track and Field clarified groups of athletes are left untapped as a result.
this monopoly when the U.S. Ninth Circuit Courtof Appeals upheld USOPC’s antitrust immunity and In order to help U.S. high-performance athletes
affirmed that these rights extend to sponsorship access more sponsorship revenues to support
deals for individual athletes participating not only in them through training and competition, USOPC
the Olympic and Paralympic games but also Olym- launched its Athlete Marketing Program in 2021.
pic and Paralympic trials.272 The establishment of Under this program, athletes can sign up for eiUSOPC’s Athlete Marketing Program, while creat- ther individual or group marketing opportunities.
ing sponsorship opportunities for individual athletes, Throughout participation, an athlete retains fullhas had the effect of preserving USOPC’s ultimate ownership of his or her NIL rights. The Athlete
control over sponsorship rules within the context of Marketing Program’s agreement reads:
Olympic and Paralympic sports.
USOPC acknowledges and agrees that, as beAs a result, athletes participating in the movement
tween USOPC and Athlete, Athlete is the sole
have little recourse when asked to sign away NIL
owner of Athlete Likeness, and USOPC shallrights as part of the contracts they enter upon selecnot acquire any right, title, or interest therein.
tion to a national team. In many cases, we found thatAthlete hereby represents and warrants that it
athletes are discouraged from reviewing contracts
has all necessary rights to grant to USOPC thewith the help of an attorney, and few can afford lerights described herein, and will not object to271

Pat Forde, “NCAA’s New NIL Landscape Already Proving to Quell the Naysayers,” Sports Illustrated, July 1, 2021.

272Gold Medal LLC v. USA Track & Field, 899 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2018).

Findings

99...Only 11.5% of high-performance athletes participating in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
movement reported earning any sponsorship revenues at all, according to our survey.
USOPC’s use of the Athlete Marketing Rights,
so long as such use is in accordance with theterms of this Athlete AMP Agreement.
For individual marketing, athletes can sign up to be
added to the Athlete Marketing Program’s platform,
which they can use to connect with sponsor businesses that have similarly enrolled in the platform in order
to search for athletes. Those who participate in group
marketing effectively lease their NIL rights to USOPC
to use in its marketing and media under its sponsorshipagreements.
Group-marketing participation through the Athlete
Marketing Program earns athletes an automatic basepayment of $1,250 per quadrennium. To date, according to USOPC, more than 800 athletes have participated, and it has yielded an average of $3,000 a year per
athlete through agreements for the use of their NIL
rights. When considering that the average net financial
burden on high-performance athletes in our country isjust under $12,000, this extra revenue can make a substantial difference for many. It is, however, still paltry
when weighed against the enormous financial hardships athletes face throughout their time training andcompeting. While the Athlete Marketing Program is a
step in the right direction, it still leaves USOPC in control of access to sponsorship opportunities for many
athletes while they are participating in movement
sports, raising the question of whether USOPC is thebest entity to operate such a marketing platform.
Furthermore, the Commission found that manyhigh-performance athletes are still routinely asked
by governing bodies to hand over their NIL rights
as part of team agreements without sufficient earnings or without reasonable opportunities to review
contracts and seek attorney guidance in advance.
For example, National Governing Body 24 asks its
high-performance competitors to sign an Athlete
Funding Agreement, which requires them to handover NIL rights to the NGB for its exclusive use andfor use by NBC Universal without compensation.
However, prior consent by the athlete is necessary
whenever National Governing Body 24 wishes touse a name, image, or likeness for commercial purposes. A distinction is made between marketing forthe national team and the marketing of individual
athletes, and the 2021-2022 Athlete Funding Agreement used by National Governing Body 24 states:[National Governing Body 24] may, without
the Athlete’s prior written consent, make useof Athlete’s Identifications in a manner thatis “Team-Featuring” (as that term is definedin the USOPC Policy on NGB Athlete Agreements—i.e., an image depicting an athlete or
athletes which is not Athlete-Featuring but
represents or depicts Team USA in any fashion), including for commercial use.
Like many other governing bodies, involvement in
an athlete-funding program at National Governing
Body 24 comes with a requirement to participate inmedia training and press availabilities, which canbe time consuming. Similarly, Paralympic Sports
Organization 2 asks athletes on its men’s team tosign an athlete agreement that requires media appearances in return for a minimum of $750 in stipend funding per quarter. For athletes on National
Governing Body 25’s women’s team who signed its
Athlete Marketing Agreement for 2022-2023, thefollowing conditions apply:
The Athlete agrees to engage in a minimum offour and a maximum of six full days (up tosix hours each, including travel time) without remuneration except for reasonable travel
costs, of non-commercial Appearances in any
year of the Membership Period as reasonably
required by [National Governing Body 25] forpromotional activities.
In return, the athletes are provided stipends according to a calculation based on either the number of years on the national team or on the numberof games in which they participated, ranging from
$1,050 to $1,750 each month. Some governing bodies have included strict rules in their funding agree-

100

Findings

ments limiting what athletes can say publicly, suchas National Governing Body 26. Its 2017 National
Team Athlete Agreement states:
Athlete shall not disparage [National Governing Body 26] or question its operations or
integrity on any public platform, in public appearances, or on private platforms involving[National Governing Body 26] members and/or pipeline athletes.
The Commission did see a few agreements, however,that were more sensitive to the burdens placed on athletes and were written in a way that clearly aimed torespect and protect athletes’ rights and schedules. One
notable example came from USOPC’s Paralympic Internally Managed Sport 1, which included the following language:(a) Respect for Athlete’s Training. In carrying out
its duties and activities under this Agreement,[Internally Managed Sport 1] will be respectfulof, and use reasonable efforts to avoid interferingwith Athlete’s training and competition schedules.
(b) Use of Image. In no event will [Internally Managed Sport 1] use or authorize the use of Athlete’s
name, picture, likeness, voice and biographicalinformation for the purpose of trade, including
any use in a manner that would imply Athlete’s
endorsement of any company, product, or service,without Athlete’s express written permission.
Furthermore, National Governing Body 15 publishes an Athlete Participation Manual and provides it tothose who sign athlete partnership agreements, helping to ensure that athletes have access to clear and understandable information about their obligations. This
document outlines athletes’ rights and responsibilities
under that agreement with regard to marketing and stipends, explaining what athletes can expect in a straightforward manner so as to help them plan ahead. Sadly,
agreements like that from Internally Managed Sport 1
and supplemental information of the kind provided by
National Governing Body 15 do not yet appear to be
the norm but the exception.
Governing bodies, the Commission found during
our interviews, also often leave little room for ath-

letes to decline participation in licensing agreements.
While they are prohibited from imposing commercial-rights agreements on athletes as a prerequisite
for participation, NGBs and PSOs are able to getaround this restriction by linking such agreements
to athlete funding or other forms of support. In sucha way, they are able to use resource allocation asleverage to secure control over athletes’ NIL rights.
Once party to an agreement with a governing body,athletes may be expected to meet certain obligations,
including use of their names, images, and likenesses
as part of a team or group marketing endeavor, product endorsements and use of certain brands’ equipment, or even completing individual marketing
deals with a sponsor. Frequently, the obligations thatcome with these licensing agreements can interrupt
training schedules and impede athletes’ time-management at competition events. For example, National Governing Body 6 entered into a $600,000
agreement with a manufacturer of insulated drinkware and outdoor-adventure products. Under theterms of a 2022 amendment to that deal, National
Governing Body 6 received an additional $50,000 in
exchange for agreeing to provide athletes with thecompany’s products to use in training, competition,and media. Moreover, the NGB agreed to provide
the sponsor with access to members of its national team for press and promotional appearances, including a minimum of one full or two half service
days annually to be fulfilled by at least one National
Governing Body 6 athlete. The same NGB inked a$400,000 sponsorship deal with an insurance company in 2021 that requires a minimum of two athlete
appearances each year and is contingent on four athletes from the U.S. Olympic team separately making
individual licensing agreements with that sponsor.
Furthermore, National Governing Body 15, in its
2022 athlete agreement, requires athletes selected
for its national team to participate “in at least two
promotional activities during the term on behalf of[National Governing Body 15] and/or the [National
Governing Body 15] Foundation without compensation, other than reimbursement of reasonable travel
expenses.” In other words, these athletes are paid fortheir travel but not the time they spend using their
NIL rights to benefit the governing body. National
Governing Body 15 also mandates that athletes au-

Findings

101

tograph up to twenty-five promotional items with- tive at all.” This stands in sharp contrast to USADA,
out any compensation.
for which only 12.4% of athletes said the same. Just
2.1% called USOPC’s communications “extremely
While it is certain that athletes stand to benefit finan- effective,” while 24.4% gave USADA the same ascially from licensing and sponsorship agreements, it sessment. For many athletes wishing to step up andis also clear from our findings that the benefits to work toward addressing problems they see withinthem rarely balance against the burdensome obliga- the movement, it is unclear how to do so. Nearlytions and, sometimes, the handing over of their NIL half of athletes—47%—told us they did not know
rights. In the Commission’s assessment, this is a con- how to become involved in the movement outside
sequence of athletes playing little role in the negotia- of competition, whether through the Team USA
tion of licensing agreements for which the impact on Athletes’ Commission or another avenue.
their time and on their rights are profound. While
we cannot directly measure the effects on athlete The dispute-resolution and arbitration system properformance, undoubtedly there is an impact, and vides another example of how such communicawe know from our conversations with athletes di- tions breakdowns impact athletes. With regard to
rectly involved that added pressure from the terms disputes over national-team selection—what are
and obligations of these agreements all too often known as Section Nine disputes, referring to thetranslates to poorer outcomes in competition.
relevant part of USOPC’s Bylaws—we found thatthe criteria for selection are unclear and differ
Finding: Athletes often lack clear information about from one governing body to the next, exacerbattheir rights and responsibilities as they move be- ing these disputes. While NGBs and PSOs are retween sports contexts, and a breakdown in the quired to abide by certain standards set by USOPC
communication process between institutions for team-selection processes, many rely on a mix
and athletes have led to confusion about the dis- of discretionary and objective criteria to make finalpute-resolution and arbitration process with regard national-team selections. Some athletes have been
to national-team selection. Poor communication to deterred from pursuing Section Nine cases because
athletes also translates into broad lack of knowl- selection criteria for their governing bodies are eiedge about how the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic ther unclear or sufficiently discretionary as to makemovement is organized and governed.
it overly burdensome to prove a violation. The
Commission reviewed several Section Nine cases in
Meanwhile, athletes report to us that they are of- which governing bodies relied on both discretionten confused about their rights and responsibili- ary and objective criteria against their own policies,
ties in general as they move among different sports leading to arbitrators finding athletes’ cases to havecontexts, particularly into Olympic- and Paralym- merit—but coming too late in the process to propic-movement sports from collegiate sports. With vide sufficient remedy and inclusion on a nationour nation’s unique model for collegiate sports, in al team. In some cases, we found, athletes simply
which higher-education programs fund much of could not establish with certainty exactly what the
our Olympic and Paralympic pipeline—indeed, selection criteria would be for their governing bodymuch of the world’s pipeline—athletes frequently or encountered difficulty in understanding what armove from the collegiate to the movement contexts bitrators would take into account when consideringas they train and compete. Consequently, athletes discretionary criteria in a dispute.
rely on the clear explanation of differing rules andpractices as they move from collegiate to movement Alarmingly, the Commission also observed consesports. More than three in ten current athletes the quences to gaps in communication beyond inforCommission surveyed told us that USOPC com- mation about athletes’ rights, responsibilities, communication of policies and procedures for athletes petition schedule, and dispute resolution processes.
when participating in movement programs and Only 54.4% of athletes in our movement survey unevents was either “not so effective” or “not effec- derstood that USOPC is a private organization and102

Findings

not a governmental entity. Even fewer—46.7% of ath- Under current statute, the mandate for USOPC is that:
letes—knew that USOPC does not receive any public funding. When asked by our survey if they could…not less than 1/3 of the membership of the board
name even a single board member of USOPC, theof directors of the corporation shall be composed of,and elected by, such amateur athletes; and not lessthan 20 percent of the membership of the board of...Fewer than four in ten athletes told us that
directors of the corporation shall be composed ofthey feel supported by USOPC, and fewer
amateur athletes who have represented the United
than half indicated feeling supported by
States in international amateur athletic competitheir particular NGB or PSO.
tion during the preceding 10-year period…274
institutional body with the greatest power and influence over the policies affecting their participationin movement sports, most athletes could not do so.
That so many high-performance athletes lack evenbasic knowledge about the movement and its governance underscores the communication failures thatexist between USOPC and the governing bodies, on
one hand, and the athletes they serve, on the other.
Consequently, given this poor communication, it did
not surprise the Commission to find that fewer thanfour in ten athletes told us that they feel supported
by USOPC and fewer than half indicated feeling supported by their particular NGB or PSO.
Finding: Not all governing bodies are compliant withstatutory requirements for athlete representation,
raising questions about oversight and enforcement.
The ten-year rule for service eligibility may also not be
the most effective method of ensuring current athletes’ representation on USOPC and governing-bodyboards.

Furthermore, it directs USOPC to:…ensure that the membership and voting power
held by such amateur athletes is not less than 1/3of the membership and voting power held in theboard of directors of the corporation and in thecommittees and entities of the corporation, including any panel empowered to resolve grievances…275
Current law also requires that each NGBs and PSOs
certified by USOPC also provide high-performance athletes with “not less than 1/3 of the voting power held by its
board of directors and other such governing boards…”276

In the Commission’s interviews, focus groups, andpublic hearing, we observed a general consensus
among athletes and their advocates that Congress’s
requirement of 33% athlete representation was a positive development within the movement. However,this is seen as a minimum, not an ideal. One athlete
from National Governing Body 9 who participated in
our focus groups stated: “Thirty-three percent athlete
As a means to address the gaps in athletes’ rights representation [should be the goal] in all the groups
when moving among different sports contexts, that decide on everything. That’s a baseline we’re askCongress included language in the Empowering ing for”.
Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur Athletes Act
of 2020 setting minimum representation levels for The Commission closely examined the bylaws andathletes on the boards of USOPC and the governing board composition of USOPC as well as of each govbodies.273 Intended to empower athletes as agents erning body to determine whether they are in comof decision-making within the movement’s gover- pliance with current statute with regard to athletenance, this reform built on earlier amendments that representation. We found that, as of September 30,
had initially required a fifth of board members to 2023, at least seven governing bodies currently do notmeet the 33% minimum requirement that Congress
be drawn from current or retired athletes.
273

Pub. L. 116-189.

274

36 U.S.C. 2205.

275

Ibid.

276

Ibid.

Findings

has imposed. Incidentally, only one governing body
had a majority-athlete board, for which the figure iscurrently 62.5%.
This is occurring in spite of USOPC’s thorough andregular audits of the governing bodies. Given those
audits, the Commission has no alternative but to consider this a problem of enforcement as opposed to
one of oversight. Indeed, several of the non-compliant governing bodies are among the larger and moreestablished. We have found anecdotal evidence—
through our many one-on-one interviews with movement leaders and participants—that USOPC’s audit
requirements and process can be overly burdensome
on smaller NGBs and PSOs, where CEOs and othersenior executives have to complete audit paperworkthemselves because of a lack of dedicated staff. This
leads us to suspect that USOPC may be turning ablind eye to the non-compliance of larger governing
bodies with higher levels of influence while scrutinizing the audits for smaller or newer ones. We hope thisis not the case.
With such a substantial rate of non-compliancewith Congress’s athlete-representation mandate,even three years after the Empowering Olympic,
Paralympic, and Amateur Athletes Act was signed
into law, one of two explanations are possible. Either USOPC is choosing not to use the authority
granted to it by Congress—the power to decertify a governing body—to enforce this mandate or
Congress has not provided a clear-enough process
by which USOPC and the governing bodies can beassessed through public oversight as to whether
they are meeting current statutory requirements.
Regardless, it is clear that no effective enforcement mechanism exists to ensure that these boards
are constituted according to Congress’s directive.
While USOPC conducts regular audits of governing
bodies’ athlete-representation requirement, in theform of Athlete-Representation Review Working
Groups created to evaluate boards’ representation,
many governing bodies were granted extensions or
exemptions. The working group assessing compliance for National Governing Body 12 claimed in
its findings that athletes did not wish to have morethan 20% representation, though the Commission
had no way to verify that information and how it103

was determined. Neither USOPC appears to beable to compel the governing bodies to comply
with statute, nor does Congress itself. In the Commission’s view, this can be attributed to the lack ofregular, independent oversight of USOPC and thegoverning bodies on Congress’s behalf.
Athlete representation on boards, however, is only
as effective as the representatives selected. Evenif current athletes have formal representation on
USOPC and governing-body boards, their powerhas been diluted through the ten-year-rule restrictions. While intended as a way to ensure that athlete
representatives were in touch with the challenges
faced by current athletes, the ten-year rule has now
become an impediment to current athletes’ empowerment. Not only does current statute effectively restrict ten-year athletes to selecting 20% of thevoting members of each board (with the remainderof the mandated one-third representation considered seats set aside for retired athletes outside theten-year electorate); it also has curtailed the abilityof ten-year athletes to choose as their representatives those who may be best suited to carry out thework. The Commission heard from many current
athletes that the board representatives they electare less-effective advocates because they lack sufficient experience on organizational boards and an
initial unfamiliarity with the internal relationshipsthat often facilitate board decision-making. Manylack knowledge of statute, bylaws, and board precedents. We heard in our interviews serious concernsthat ten-year athletes themselves do not always
make the best board representatives for their peers.
As a result, increased athlete representation on
USOPC and governing-body boards, as defined under current law, has not translated into greater benefits to current athletes or deeper trust by them inthe system meant to protect them and their rights.
Finding: The USOPC Office of the Athlete Ombuds is
not an effective alternative to an independent entity advocating solely on behalf of high-performanceathletes within the movement.
While USOPC has been required under statute tomaintain an Office of the Athlete Ombuds since1998, the presence of such a role within USOPC has

104

Findings

not sufficiently responded to the needs of athletes,
led to increased athlete safety, or effectively raisedathletes’ concerns with leadership. Even after Congress added a confidentiality requirement for the
Athlete Ombuds as part of the 2020 governance reforms, this office has been hamstrung by the structural roadblock of being unable to provide athleteswith legal representation as well as a perception that
it ultimately answers to USOPC leadership and not
to athletes. While included in statute as part of Congress’s efforts in both 1998 and 2020 to provide forathletes’ concerns to be heard among USOPC leadership, the Athlete Ombuds office has not generated
any measurable action to address gaps in athletes’
rights or well-being in the way athletes have sought.

Advisory Council (AAC). However, a lack of independence has diminished the Team USA Athletes’
Commission’s position in the eyes of the athletes it
serves, making it less effective and less trusted.
Finding: The Team USA Athletes’ Commission, while
striving to be an effective voice for athletes within
the movement, cannot succeed as long as it is financially dependent on USOPC, a situation that has
jeopardized athletes’ trust in it. The absence of a truly independent organization representing athletes
disempowers them across key processes, with implications for every aspect of a high-performanceathlete’s life.

While the Memorandum of Understanding signed
by USOPC and the Team USA Athletes’ Commission in 2020 was a positive step toward ensuring thelatter would be able to hire full-time staff and secure
regular funding, it did not address the fundamental…offers independent, confidential advice to elite
challenges that have hampered its ability to carry out
athletes regarding their rights and responsibiliits mission. That agreement saw USOPC commit toties in the Olympic and Paralympic Movement,
providing the Team USA Athletes’ Commission withand assists athletes with a broad range of ques$525,000 in funding each year with a 2% annual intions, disputes, complaints and concerns.
crease. Up to 10% of those funds can be rolled over
into the next year if unused—but any portion greater
The key word here, of course, is “advice.” With ath- than that amount must be returned to USOPC. The
letes desperate for legal aid and direct assistance Memorandum of Understanding stated:
during an arbitration or dispute-resolution process,
It is the intent of the USOPC to provide resourcgeneral advice alone is insufficient help. As Elizaes such that the [Team USA Athletes’ Commisbeth Ramsey, Executive Director of the Team USA
Athletes’ Commission, testified during our hearing,sion] can be effective and efficient in fulfilling
their duties as they are stated in the Ted Stevens“there’s the Ombuds office, which I think tries to do
Act & the USOPC Bylaws.277
as best a job as they can, but they can’t provide legal
advice. They have to remain confidential and neutral…” Athletes across the movement are seeking Testifying at our hearing, though, Ms. Ramsey exassistance from an entity that is not neutral but in- plained that funding alone is not enough for her orstead reliably on their side and able to provide legal ganization to succeed in its mission. The Team USA
Athletes’ Commission, she told us:
counsel.
The Athlete Ombuds, according to its own Privacy
and Confidentiality Policy, which was among the
documents the Commission reviewed:

Across the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement,
there is only one entity solely dedicated to working
on behalf of athletes without any conflict of interest, representing their views within the institutionsof governance, and advocating for their well-being.
That, of course, is the Team USA Athletes’ Commission—known until 2023 as the USOPC Athletes’277…is not given the access or information it needsfrom the USOPC to advocate effectively forTeam USA athletes. ……Our athlete representatives have not been given by some of their NGBs
or the USOPC names and contact information
for the very athletes they represent.

Athletes Advisory Council and U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, “Memorandum of Understanding,” January 17, 2020.

Findings

105

Ms. Ramsey was very forthcoming in her assessmentof the challenges facing Team USA Athlete’s Commission, and her testimony underscored just how
much its lack of independence matters. She said:terest. The same athlete who described avoiding
the Team USA Athletes’ Commission in our focus
group also told us what she believed she and her
fellow athletes needed most:First, Team USA AC relies solely on the USOPC
for all its funding. It is prohibited from obtaining sponsors, and any fundraising it does is offset by the budget allotment from the USOPC.
In fact, USOPC could, in theory, pull back all
funding for Team USA AC. Without adequate
resources, we are unable to provide critical services to Team USA athletes such as helping protect their rights under the [Ted Stevens Olympic
and Amateur Sports] Act and USOPC Bylaws
and increasing financial security, support, andoverall wellness for athletes.

I really think that we need professional advocacy and representation. We need H.R. and aplayers’ association, or a union, or someone
who can neutrally listen to athletes’ needs andconcerns and approach the [USOPC] administration or coaches or whoever professionallywith labor law.

Second, because Team USA AC is not a legallyindependent body, it has been challenging for
our Athlete Representatives and Team USA
AC staff to form trusting quality relationships
with some of the athletes it serves to represent.
Many athletes still believe Team USA AC staff
works for the USOPC and therefore believe that
we do not have athletes’ best interests in mind
when making decisions.

Another athlete, from National Governing Body 27,
shared that assessment. “We need to have someone
independent,” she told us, “and that the athletes
trust.”...There is a clear need for an entity thatreports solely to the athletes and works only
on their behalf, without conflicts of interest.

With no other entity expressly set up to put athletes’ rights, representation, and well-being first,
the Team USA Athletes’ Commission has a crucialrole to play in the fostering of an athlete-centeredWith its funding still entirely at the mercy of USOPC, movement. In its current form, however, it cannot
the Team USA Athletes’ Commission cannot fully succeed at doing so. Athletes are not effectively
earn the trust of the athletes it serves. Perceptions served by an advocate whose hands are tied by statmatter, and when athletes do not trust the Team utory limits on raising funds, by its location within
USA Athletes’ Commission to elevate their concerns the apparatus of USOPC, and by reliance on thoseand advocate on their behalf, they do not come for- often in an adversarial position to share essential
ward seeking help. We heard this sentiment from information voluntarily. Until athletes have a truacross the athlete community, and one focus-group ly independent—and independently funded—adparticipant from National Governing Body 22 put vocacy organization charged with providing themit bluntly: “I avoided the [Team USA Athletes’ Com- with a duty of care, including in the form assisting
mission] for a long time because it was basically just with legal costs and making referrals to trusted outthe [USOPC] administration’s puppet.”side counsel, athletes will remain disempowered
within the movement and at greater risk of abuse
The Commission has assessed, however, that the and mistreatment.
Team USA Athletes’ Commission is working hard
to serve athletes to the best of its ability and that Finding: A lack of transparency and consistency has
its staff continues striving to overcome this misper- made it difficult to draw conclusions about trends
ception. We also found that there is a clear need in the representation of women and girls, racial andfor an entity that reports solely to the athletes and ethnic minorities, and people with disabilities acrossworks only on their behalf, without conflicts of in- the movement.

106

Findings

When addressing athlete representation, it is also essential to ensure that the Olympic and Paralympic
movement in this country is representative of all Americans. Sports engage, inspire, and benefit Americans
from every background, and it is critical to the movement’s success that all who wish to participate can doso. When Congress enacted the Ted Stevens Olympic
and Amateur Sports Act in 1978, one of its original
mandates to USOPC and the governing bodies was tohelp increase the representation of women, minorities,
and people with disabilities in Olympic and Paralympic sports at all levels, from youth engagement all theway up to service on organizational boards of directors.
Since that time—though limited progress has certainly
been made, particularly in recent years as USOPC andthe governing bodies have strengthened their efforts toincrease diversity in both participation and administration—it is clear that the movement still faces challenges with diversity, representation, and equitable access.
One major challenge we encountered was difficulty inmaking a detailed, scientific assessment of statisticaltrends in improving diversity because of a lack of sufficient data. While the Commission made a thorougheffort to obtain this information, a lack of transparency
both in public disclosures and in response to direct requests for internal data prevented us from doing so. As
a result, we cannot provide Congress with the detailed
analysis requested of us in our authorizing statute.

When analyzing data from the scorecards reportedby the governing bodies for the period between 20172021, one can see limited improvements in some areas
when it comes to the following three metrics: board
composition, total formal participation across a sport,
and national-team composition. At the same time, theCommission found striking gaps in data reporting by
USOPC, NGBs, and PSOs, with several omitting statistics on certain diversity metrics some years, further
clouding our ability to track trends movement-wide.
This was particularly true for Americans with disabilities, for which less information was recorded by thegoverning bodies than for other groups.

Representation for people of color—which USOPC
defines as individuals identifying as “African-American / Black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, PacificIslander, and two or more races”278—across NGBs and
PSOs appear to have steadily risen since 2017 both inbroad participation and on boards of directors. However, a lack of consistent data across sports means that
we cannot make conclusive determinations. Between
2017-2021, the share of women and girls participating
across the governing bodies that provided data does
not seem to have changed significantly, remaining at
approximate 42%. However, when looking at individual governing bodies, we see trends in both directions.
For example, the board of National Governing Body
15 saw an increase from 13% to 50% women over the
Since 2017, governing bodies have used a self-reporting course of the four years we analyzed. During the same
scorecard as a rubric for determining diversity within period, though, the percentage of women on the board
their organizations and progress toward greater equity of National Governing Body 28 fell from half to a quarand accessibility, which they have submitted annually ter. For Americans with disabilities, representation on
to USOPC. These scorecards were previously used by some boards has risen slightly, but overall participation
USOPC to measure progress against targets for closing has not substantially changed across the sports where
gaps across several metrics, which include board com- information is available.
position, staff diversity, and athlete diversity, among
others. In 2020, USOPC did away with these targets It is important, of course, to keep in mind that progress
and the color-coded system it had used to rank govern- in one of the three categories alone—board composiing bodies’ progress, though it has continued to collect tion, total formal participation across a sport, and naand track diversity data. Unfortunately, the Commis- tional-team composition—does not make up for shortsion was not provided enough information to observe falls in the others. Real diversity means ensuring that alltrends across sports or to be able to draw conclusions across the movement are represented and feel that theirunique experiences and perspectives are present at theabout diversity throughout the movement.
278 While the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act uses the term “racial and ethnic minorities,” and the Empowering Olympic,
Paralympic, and Amateur Athletes Act refers just to “minorities,” the Commission determined that analyzing USOPC’s collected data tracking “people of color” is the closest way to make assessments concerning the involvement of racial and ethnic minorities across the movement, even though the terms are not fully analogous. This further underscores the need for a clear, uniform system for tracking participation
data and making that data available for study by Congress and by the public.

Findings

table of leadership. A board that has only increased its
number of women—but has not included among those
women individuals from minority communities—has
not seriously addressed diversity. The highly multicultural and ethnically diverse board of an NGB that
includes both para and non-para sports but has no or
little representation of those with disabilities has likewise failed. Unfortunately, the Commission was unable
to assess diversity trends across the movement in sucha way or in a method consistent with the approach of
the U.S. Census Bureau, as USOPC does not include
in its reporting intersectional data collected by governing bodies from board members, executives, staff, andathletes. When our Commission specifically requested
this information from USOPC in our follow-up on in
July 2023, it was not provided.

107

pered a full analysis of trends in representation, wewere able to identify some recent policies that arelikely to have a positive impact on diversity acrossthe movement. One of the areas in which we foundthat USOPC has excelled of late has been support
for women’s health in sports, which is a key to successful recruitment and retention of high-performance athletes for international competition. An
athlete who becomes pregnant while in training
and competition can now retain both her athlete
stipend and her coverage under the USOPC’s EAHI
program through the duration of pregnancy and fora full year after the birth of a child. Moreover, that
one-year extension of coverage is also provided if
the pregnancy results in miscarriage or the loss ofa child. Retaliation by an NGB or PSO for notification of a pregnancy is strictly prohibited under
Finding: Certain policies implemented by USOPC USOPC policies, and officials are required to keep
and governing bodies in recent years are likely to that information confidential.279 This policy will
have positive effects on the recruitment and reten- help USOPC and the governing bodies foster antion of women and girls, racial and ethnic minorities, environment in which more women can participate
and people with disabilities.
at the high-performance level and not be forced tochoose between starting a family and continuing
While a lack of transparency in public reporting and to train and compete for U.S. national teams. We
sharing information with the Commission ham- commend USOPC for leading in this area.
279“Athlete Pregnancy Support & Resources,” U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, accessed May 16, 2023.

108

Findings

In the same vein, in 2020 National Governing Body
15 launched a mobile app to help participants reduce inflammation and performance-inhibiting
side-effects of menstruation during training andcompetition. Moreover, the NGB has establishedpriorities and goals to increase the number of women in coaching. These include raising the numberof women coaching national teams, creating mentorship opportunities for women in coaching, andintegrating training tracks between the club-development and national-team programs. Similarly, National Governing Body 17 has developed astrategic plan that focuses on increasing women’s
participation through recruiting more women as
coaches and coordinating more closely with NCAA
programs to identify talent, among others. It also
entered into a partnership with a national nonprofit organization to publish a set of leading practices
aimed at expanding opportunities at every level for
women and girls in the sport.
The Commission also identified several governing
bodies making concerted, committed efforts toimprove diversity and to recruit and retain a morediverse pool of high-performance athletes. These
governing bodies are actively addressing inequities
in administration and mentorship through grants,
training, and recruitment policies with an aim toalign practices with values. National Governing
Body 11, for example, has been increasing its focus on the needs of Paralympic athletes at its top
national training centers. At National Governing
Body 2, the adoption of a robust plan in 2017 toaddress diversity and inclusion focuses on making“inside-out” progress from the executive suite all theway down through the organization to the grassroots, strengthening efforts to attract and support
not only women and girls, minorities, and people with disabilities but also military veterans andLGBTQ Americans.280 The same NGB also distributed $80,000 in grants to cover participation feesand provide facility time, equipment, and coaching
free of charge to youth and grassroots participantsfrom under-represented backgrounds. In 2017, National Governing Body 16 received a $20,000 grant
to help girls from low-income families afford toplay the sport through a partnership with the nonprofit YMCA. After recently integrating a formerly internally managed Paralympic sport, National
Governing Body 1 launched a new selection system
for the national team that identifies athletes acrossthe continuum of ability levels both in order to support those with the highest medal potential at the
top as well as to move talented individuals througha training progression so they can better reach theParalympics.
Finding: Poor funding to support para sports at alllevels has contributed to problems in access for
Americans with disabilities.
One of the areas we found in dire need of improvement was accessibility for Americans with disabilities. In evaluating gaps in access for those with disabilities, the Commission found inadequate fundingat all levels to be a major contributing factor. This directly threatens U.S. competitiveness at the Paralympics, the Parapan-American Games, and in otherinternational para-sports competitions. We also
identified a link between insufficient funding and
USOPC’s internal management of many para sports.
In one example, Internally Managed Sport 2 has
struggled under USOPC’s internal management. Already a prohibitively expensive sport in which to participate—due to the high cost of specialized equipment, training, and travel—the few clubs that exist
are forced to compete with one another for scantfunding. The impact of this challenge on the Internally Managed Sport 2 talent pipeline in our country
has been demonstrable. As the sport’s leaders notedin their 2017-2021 High Performance Plan:
The single biggest issue related to the pipeline
currently is that once an athlete outgrows the
skill progression of their club they are not sure
how to take the next step or seek out the resources needed to continue developing at a steady rate.
The lack of guidance, coupled with the financial
burden of the sport… tends to lead to athletes
leaving the sport to pursue other endeavors.281

280“Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan,” [National Governing Body 2], 2017.

281“[Internally Managed Sport 2]: 2017-2021 High Performance Plan,” U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, 2017.

Findings

109

Internally Managed Sport 3282 faced similar diffi…there is an urgent need to create more systemculty. Its athletes received no direct financial supatic participation in adaptive sports across theport from USOPC in the form of stipends, evenentire country. I got started in adaptive sports
though high-performance athletes in the sport canpurely by accident. I was leaving a swimmingsee participation costs as high as $4,000 per race
lesson when an employee of the rehabilitationin which they compete. According to Internallycenter I took my lessons at asked if I wanted toManaged Sport 3’s 2022-2025 High Performanceplay wheelchair basketball. …Adaptive sports
Plan, “development athletes must fund their own
is something people fall into through a random
way to World Cup races to qualify for the Nationconnection or seeing a flyer posted on the wall.
al Team and the Paralympic Games.” As many as
There is no systematic way to ensure people with
two thirds of the sport’s athletes identified as readydisabilities have access to adaptive sports andfor the high-performance level decline internationfitness opportunities like exists for organizedal-competition opportunities because of these highyouth sport for able-bodied children.
costs.283 At the grassroots level of the pipeline, “theclub level continues to have struggles with develop- The Commission encountered story after story
ing athletes to a competitive international level…”284 like Mr. Aoki’s, in which acclaimed and aspiring
Meanwhile, according to Internally Managed Sport Paralympians nearly missed beginning in their3 officials, the pathway from beginner levels to sports because of a lack of entry opportunities andmore-advanced competition is not clearly laid out barriers to youth participation. We also heard fromfor those ready to take those next steps. The Com- the parents of an athletic eight-year-old who had
mission also identified another challenge facing our been paralyzed as a result of a gunshot wound during
Paralympic pipeline. In its 2023-2024 high-perfor- the horrific July 4, 2022, mass shooting in Highland
mance plan, a Paralympic team organized by Na- Park, Illinois. The family did not know how to findtional Governing Body 16 identified one of its cur- any sports programs for their child locally and conrent weaknesses as a “lack of disabled male athletes tacted a national organization hoping to find inforinvolved in High School, Junior Clubs or Collegiate… mation. It shouldn’t be so difficult for families ofyoung Americans with disabilities to learn how toprograms.”
access para sports in the communities where they
Indeed, several para sports are struggling to demon- reside. Inadequate communication about opporstrate opportunities at the entry level that attract tunities, compounded by insufficient funding andinterested participants. While young Americans athlete support, has significantly harmed America’s
often become acquainted with non-para sports Paralympic pipeline and the ability of our young
through broad exposure to different disciplines in people with disabilities to access the myriad benschool and through community programs, those efits of sport. Moreover, if multi-sport sampling iswith disabilities rarely have the same opportunity. In at the core of the American Development Modits 2021 High-Performance Plan, National Govern- el, that model is not being applied equally within
ing Body 11 observed that the lack of a well-defined the movement when it comes to para sports, in no
Paralympic pipeline in that sport, as in so many small part because it can be difficult to access evenothers, “is still the greatest barrier in finding young a single para sport in one’s community or region.
talent.”285 In addition to hearing from a number ofParalympic-movement participants who shared experiences of difficulty in finding youth-sports programs, Mr. Aoki told us in his public testimony:
282 Internally Managed Sport 3 has since transitioned out of internal management by USOPC and is now organized under one of thenational governing bodies.
283“[Internally Managed Sport 3]: 2022-2025 High Performance Plan,” U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, 2022.

284

Ibid.

285

“[National Governing Body 11] Paralympics High-Performance Plan 2021,” [National Governing Body 11], 2021.

110

Findings

Finding: In the current pay-to-play system of youth spending on youth sports and America’s sports-talentand grassroots sports, financial hurdles too often pipeline. One parent told us:
pose barriers for children to enter and remain in
America’s Olympic and Paralympic pipeline and ac…The Hispanic community, as an example, is one
cess the lifelong benefits of participating in moveof the most passionate in our sport. Within ourment sports. However, the data is not all negative,
area, many of them go to the same schools butwith some notable gains to report.
can’t participate on the club team. And sometimes it’s ‘I’m not going to pay it’, and sometimes it’s
Financial barriers are not only impediments to raising‘I can’t afford to pay it, or that’s not where we priparticipation by those with disabilities; indeed, they
oritize our money’. I also coach at the high-school
continue to deter the creation of a more diverse andlevel, and I have players who try out in ninth orequitably accessible youth-sports landscape overall. As
tenth grade. And [they are] just very ill-prepared
noted above, America’s youth- and grassroots-sports
compared to the well-funded athlete to even makesystem has become one of pay-to-play, advantaga team.
ing those from higher-income and wealthier households over others. An Aspen Institute report in 2022 A 2013 report by ESPN Magazine showed that Afrifound that “parents in the wealthiest households spent can-American children begin participating in youthabout four times more on their child’s sport than the sports more than a year later, on average, than white
lowest-income families. The middle-income families children; for Hispanic children, that number jumps towere far closer in their spending to the lowest-income more than a year and a half.291 It also found that thehouseholds than the wealthiest”.286 While white and least likely groups to play more than three sports—a
Hispanic families reported spending more than $880 key indicator of exposure to multi-sport sampling—on average per child on his or her primary sport each were urban (11%), rural (20%), and low-income (17%)
season, African-American families only spend an av- girls as well as boys from low-income families (27%).292
erage of $574.287 This mirrors similar data from before Moreover, the report showed a striking disparity in
the COVID-19 pandemic.288 We also observe an ur- access among those living in states with different apban-suburban-rural divide in costs and spending, with proaches to funding school-based youth sports. In
suburban households spending nearly double on a states like Iowa and Wyoming, for example, more than
80% of boys and 70% of girls had positions available onschool teams if they wanted to participate. Meanwhile,
It shouldn’t be so difficult for families
in Florida and California, fewer than four in ten boysof young Americans with disabilities
and three in ten girls had the same opportunities.

to learn how to access para sports inthe communities where they reside.

The inequalities in access found by this Commission
are not new, given this data from a decade ago. They289
child’s primary sport what rural households spend.
are, however, painfully persistent. In 2021, researchers
Urban households report spending 82.7% of what sub- at Washington University and Vanderbilt University
urban households do.290 In one of our focus groups, the demonstrated that African-American and Hispanic
Commission heard about the link between household children still participate in sports at lower rates.293 A
286“State of Play 2022: Cost-to-Play Trends,” The Aspen Institute: Project Play, 2022.

287

Ibid.

288

Ibid.

289

“Parenting Survey: Fall 2022,” The Aspen Institute: Project Play, 2022.

290

Ibid.

291

Bruce Kelley and Carl Carchia, “Hey, data data—swing!” ESPN Magazine, July 11, 2013.

292

Ibid.

293 Andrew Kuhn et al., “Disparities and Inequities in Youth Sports,” American College of Sports Medicine, Special Communication 20, no.
9 (September 2021), 494-498.

Findings

111

112

Findings

2022 study by the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s
Hospital in Chicago, in one example, found that fewer
than half of African-American and Hispanic children
had taken swimming lessons, compared to nearly threequarters of their white peers.294 Given the overall disparities in access to opportunities across American society, it is no surprise that participation in youth andgrassroots sports can be found among them.

above all else is that the number-one barrier to equitable participation is affordability. Family income andwealth are the most prominent factors determining
whether a child can access youth and grassroots sports
in the United States in 2024. Indeed, it is the Commission’s view that efforts to improve diversity withinyouth sports—in order to expand the reach of sport’s
benefits and strengthen our Olympic and Paralympic
pipeline—must be seen as inseparable from efforts to
The news, however, is not all negative. The Aspen Insti- reduce financial barriers to access at all levels in the
tute’s 2022 Parenting Survey showed few or no ethnic movement.
or racial disparities in certain key areas, including children’s average time spent each week playing sports, the Finding: USOPC’s process for selecting official U.S.
different types of sports contexts in which children par- Olympic and Paralympic hosting bids could be more
ticipate, rates of sports-related injuries, and family in- transparent.
volvement in children’s sports.295 In that survey, moreparents of African-American and Hispanic children, Congress also asked us to include in our study “acompared to those of white children, reported improved description of ongoing efforts by the United States
mental and physical health and well-being for their chil- Olympic and Paralympic Committee to recruit
dren participating in sports as well as increased quality the Olympic and Paralympic Games to the Unittime spent with parents, siblings, friends, and coach- ed States.”297 In seeking to do so, the Commission
es.296 This shows some progress toward closing gaps. found the bid process for potential U.S. hosts to
be insufficiently transparent. In spite of making
When looking at diversity within the movement and requests, we received minimal documentation on
disparities in access, what the Commission has found this process from USOPC, which oversees the se294

Cara Murez, “Race Plays a Big Role in Whether Children Learn to Swim,” U.S. News & World Report, December 15, 2022.

295“Parenting Survey: Fall 2022,” The Aspen Institute: Project Play, 2022.

296

Ibid.

297

Pub. L. 116-189.

Findings

113

114

Findings

lection of official U.S. bids to be submitted to the
IOC and the IPC. As a result, we have had to rely
mainly on publicly available documentation as wellas interviews with those possessing inside knowledge of U.S. bids and USOPC’s process. In doing so,
we were able to identify several key findings thatraise concerns.

attempts by U.S. cities, four of which were selectedby USOPC to be the official American bid for hosting the Olympic and Paralympic games: New York2012, Chicago 2016, Boston 2024, and Los Angeles
2024.298 While Denver and Reno-Tahoe recently developed and submitted serious bids for winter games,
neither were chosen by USOPC. While Boston was
initially selected as the official U.S. bid for the 2024
The Commission found that, when U.S. bids are un- summer games, it later had its bid rescinded as a
successful, their proposals and materials submitted result of local pushback. None of the bid proposals
to USOPC are never made part of the public record. from these efforts are publicly available today. ThoseThis makes it difficult for future U.S. bid planners to bids, which we know from interviews and media
learn from past experience. Over the past two de- reports included innovative, novel proposals, havecades, there have been a number of significant bid now fallen “into a black hole,” in the words of one
298 After Boston withdrew, Los Angeles was selected by USOPC to be its official 2024 bid city. Los Angeles 2024 was then carried throughat the IOC/IPC level to become Los Angeles 2028; the latter was never submitted to USOPC as part of a separate 2028-specific bid process.

Findings

115

was not prepared to invest in building new facilities
ahead of the 2026 games.299 Indeed, in a first, Switzerland is preparing to submit a whole-country bid
Finding: The U.S. bid process could be more creative to host the 2030 winter Olympic and Paralympic
and innovative to demonstrate leadership around games, eschewing the traditional model of centralhow Olympic and Paralympic games are hosted izing the games in one host city in favor of spreadingand enhance future opportunities to secure Ameri- the games as widely as possible among existing vencan games. At the same time, U.S. hosts are current- ues throughout the country. In the summer games,
ly forced to bear the full cost of the games on their we’ve seen this trend of moving events farther afieldown.
continue, with Tokyo 2020 featuring marathon andrace-walking events held hundreds of miles northBecause the U.S. bid process lacks transparency, the in Sapporo—a former winter-games host—to takeCommission had to look abroad to observe trends advantage of cooler temperatures. Meanwhile, Parin bid design that may help inform Congress and is 2024 has embraced this concept, sending its sailUSOPC leaders on avenues for reform here at home. ing events to the south of the country in Marseille,
In doing so, we found room for greater creativity in handball events to the northern city of Lille, and its
U.S. bid design. We also identified opportunities for surfing competitions to France’s far-flung Pacificinnovation that could showcase what America has Ocean territory of Tahiti.
to offer the world as a leader in sports.
In such ways, Los Angeles 2028 is an exception in
The leading trend in recent years has been the move that its organizers have planned to host all eventsto spread the games farther out from just one named within Southern California—a feature promothost city. In Beijing at the 2008 summer games, sail- ed prominently in its bid proposal submitted toing events were held in Qingdao—more than 300 USOPC and later the IOC and the IPC. It boasts ofmiles away—and equestrian events in Hong Kong, “locations with short journey times from the Olympic
which is over 1,200 miles from the named host city. village” set in four clusters, all within Los Angeles
In 2010, all events were localized around Vancouver County, with a few outlying venues within a 100
and Whistler, but London 2012 spread soccer prelim- miles of the city (though soccer preliminaries will
inaries across the United Kingdom and held sailing again take place across different cities throughout
events off the Isle of Portland in the English Channel. the host nation). In the Commission’s view, even
While Sochi 2014 kept all events in a tight radius, Rio while this approach will draw on Los Angeles’s
2016 saw a repeat of soccer preliminaries held across many assets to produce a spectacular and successthe country, a feature that the Paris 2024 planners ful 2028 games here in our country, it is a reflection
have adopted for this year’s games as well. In 2018, of some of the challenges posed by USOPC’s failure
winter-games planners again kept venues localized, to adapt alongside the IOC, the IPC, and other nawith all of them situated within the Pyeongchang tional Olympic and Paralympic committees. Favordistrict of South Korea. The 2022 Beijing games saw ing centralized, single-city bids limits what USOPC
events divided into three tight clusters: venues in can offer in the highly competitive IOC and IPC
and around China’s capital, ninety miles away in the processes for selecting future hosts.
Xiaohaituo Mountain Area, and 140 miles away inand around the city of Zhangjiakou. However, the Related to this myopic preference for compact, sinnext winter games in Italy’s Milan and Cortina d’Am- gle-city bids is the challenge that American hosts
pezzo—which together won a joint bid to host—will still bear the full burden of staging Olympic orfeature venues scattered across the European alps. Paralympic games. In other nations, the federal or
In October 2023, the Milan-Cortina d’Ampezzo or- central governments have stepped in to assist withganizers announced that sliding events would take financing, insurance, and other burdens of hostplace in either Austria or Switzerland because Italy ing. Here in the United States, cities bidding forindividual who spoke to us from experience having
worked on developing multiple U.S. bids.

299

Matt Bonesteel, “Italy will move 2026 Olympic sliding events to Austria or Switzerland,” The Washington Post, October 16, 2023.

116

Findings

the Olympic and Paralympic games are left to facethese challenges alone, even as other mega sporting events like the NFL’s Super Bowl come bundledwith captive insurance and other forms of assistance from the professional league overseeing theevent. This continues to deter potential U.S. hosts
from even initiating the process of exploring bids.

if you’re pining on trying to win, being the hostof the games, the IOC runs everything. So, theIOC dictates all the things that are deliverables and the things that need to happen. Andso, having any Paralympic narrative reallydoesn’t matter to them, and they’re the ones
who make the decision. The IPC did come andvisit, but their visit wasn’t as elaborate as theIOC’s visit. I think that’s a gap. I think that’s a
problem. I also think that it’s a problem thatboth symbols aren’t a part of the bid process.

Finding: Hosting the Paralympic Games continues
to be treated as a secondary priority to hosting the
Olympic Games, in spite of their enormous opportunities to demonstrate U.S. achievement and contribute to breaking down barriers in accessibility, equali- It is the Commission’s assessment, from the testity, and respect for people with disabilities.
mony we heard and from the public bid documentation we’ve reviewed, that the Paralympics continThe Commission heard disheartening testimony ue to be secondary to the Olympics in the minds ofin our hearing that the organizers of Los Angeles most bid planners—instead of one of two equally2028 were not, at least in the beginning, fully in- exciting and equally valuable events to bring theclusive of movement participants with disabilities. world’s attention to what America has to offer as
In a telling anecdote, nine-time Paralympian and a host nation. While we are encouraged that LA28
LA28 Organizing Committee Vice Chair Candace organizers have taken steps to address and correct
Cable shared with us that she became involved with this issue, it is clear that more attention needs to
the Organizing Committee after raising concerns be given to the status of Paralympics planning in
about the lack of Paralympic symbols and inclusion future U.S. bids.
at the LA28 logo unveiling ceremony. Ms. Cable related that afterward:
We also see room for more American leadershipand action within the international movement toI started to show up at the [LA28] office anddemand true equality for Paralympics at the IOC/see how things were run, and I saw that there
IPC level of the bidding process. The Commission
was no Paralympic representation at all. There
heard from those involved in designing past bids
was no person with a disability that had any
who shared creative ideas for how to align thevisibility in it.
Paralympic and Olympic games in the public’s understanding and attention. One of Denver’s bids,
After the Organizing Committee brought her on as for example, proposed scheduling the Olympics
Vice Chair, Ms. Cable was able to identify a number and Paralympics not subsequently but concurrentof problems with both the current attitude among ly. This would have ensured that all venues, housbid planners as well as IOC rules that still margin- ing, and transport were accessible and ready to acalize Paralympics within the international bid pro- commodate participants and fans. Such a change
cess. She told us:
would also bring far greater media coverage of the
Paralympic events during primetime alongside
I really think that that was very helpful for us
Olympic ones, with equivalent events held backto have someone in the office with a visible disto-back (such as the Olympic 100-meter dash folability as a part of it, but it wasn’t enough in
lowed immediately on television by the Paralympic
the office to continue to remind people that it
100-meter dash). Under the current process, alongwith current attitudes, creative ideas for enhancing
was the Olympic and Paralympic Games. It
the standing of the Paralympic Games do not have
was very Olympic-centric, and the reason it is,from my perspective, is because it’s run by the
space to emerge within the movement’s discourse.
IOC. I mean, we have to follow, if you’re host,Findings

117

Finding: While several reforms have been implemented in recent years, many in the movement are
not aware of them, and the public does not believe
they have gone far enough. A piecemeal approachhas fallen short, compared to systemic changes
that are needed to achieve policymakers’ desired
outcomes.

months after SafeSport’s establishment, two central
criticisms emerged. First, unlike USADA, SafeSport
is not truly independent from USOPC, being funded
mainly from USOPC’s budget. While SafeSport officials insist that the body maintains a strict separation,no organization can fully be deemed independentwhen it relies entirely for funding on the very same
entity whose staff, coaches, and athletes it has been
Throughout our study, one of the central points that charged with regulating. Thus, SafeSport’s funding
continued to emerge was the inadequacy of limited has made it vulnerable to the dangers of regulatory
actions to address broad and pervasive challenges capture. When those who control its purse-strings
within the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement. could be the very same ones investigated by SafeSSince 2017, the movement has seen the implemen- port—given the history within the movement of covtation of a number of significant reforms. Some er-ups and denials about the scope of abuse—it is nowere initiated by Congress, such as the creation of surprise that vulnerable athletes, coaches, and staff
SafeSport and statutory changes to movement gov- have not had much faith in the organization’s imparernance processes. Others were the work of USOPC tiality or ability from its beginnings.
Second, even if SafeSport were tooperate fully independently and effectively as intended by Congress, its
jurisdiction remains limited to thosewithin the ever-narrowing landscapeof youth- and grassroots-sports programs overseen by or affiliated with
NGBs or PSOs. With USOPC having been unable to meet its responsibility to regulate
grassroots sports activity to focus on the high-performance level, that vacuum has been filled over thelast four decades by outside actors. The privately operated nonprofit and for-profit sports leagues serving
all ages—but particularly younger, school-age Americans—are wholly separate from the system SafeSport is charged to protect. As a result, any individual
banned by SafeSport or placed under investigation forabuse of minors can simply find employment at one ofthese private organizations beyond SafeSport’s reach.
Often, one is able to do so without having to disclose
being under SafeSport investigation or sanction, as
public awareness of SafeSport’s comprehensive online database remains limited. Considering how longit takes for SafeSport claims to be heard, investigated,
and resolved, it is unsurprising that individuals placed
under sanction have sought to continue their careers
unencumbered outside the system overseen by NGBs
and PSOs. This places youth- and grassroots-sports
participants in these private clubs and leagues outside
SafeSport’s jurisdiction in danger.

...the Paralympics continue to be secondary to the
Olympics in the minds of most bid planners—insteadof one of two equally exciting and equally valuable
events to bring the world’s attention to what America
has to offer as a host nation.
and the NGBs and PSOs, such as those that resulted
from adoption of recommendations in the Borders
Commission report and policy changes like the new
background-check requirements. Still others were
the result of negotiations between athletes and officials, including the agreement that now permits theTeam USA Athletes’ Commission to maintain paid
staff and draw a budget from USOPC resources.
The Commission has found these changes to be,
generally, positive steps. They reflect a deep desire
across the movement to see reforms implemented
that benefit participants, improve safety, and place
athletes more firmly at the movement’s center. However, the Commission has also observed the negative
effects on the movement of piecemeal reforms put inplace as a result of crises or with strict limits in scope.
The creation of SafeSport, while essential, was accompanied by a number of institutional shortcomings that have led to serious questions about its effectiveness and doubts about its future. Even just118

Findings

SURVEY

Awareness of Reforms
1,797 movement stakeholders shared their awareness of recent reforms to the Olympic & Paralympic movement.
This figure does not include responses from retired athletes.

Athlete Representation

No Awareness(4.4%)(69.2%)

SafeSport

Other(12.6%)

Another reform that has fallen short has been the
new requirement that athlete representatives constitute 33% of USOPC, NGB, and PSO boards.
While this was a well-intentioned change, in practice it has not led to more effective avenues for athlete empowerment. Increasing athlete representation formally—without making additional changes
to ensure that athletes’ representatives can be more
successful in driving positive policy changes—has
not been able to deliver a more athlete-centered
movement.
Moreover, in spite of its inclusion formally into
statute, the Team USA Athletes’ Commission is still
marginalized, and many high-performance athletes
still do not see it as a trusted and able agent on theirbehalf. Ms. Ramsey, its Executive Director, told us
during our hearing that:
Because Team USA AC is not a legally independent body, it has been challenging for ourathlete representatives and myself and staff toform trusting, quality relationships with someof the athletes it serves to represent. Many athletes still believe I work for the USOPC and,(13.8%)

therefore, sometimes believe I do not have theathletes’ best interests in mind when making
decisions.
Without clarifying and strengthening the TeamUSA Athletes’ Commission’s role and powers, Congress has not provided athletes with the robust advocacy and representation they have long sought
and needed within the movement.
Additionally, communication regarding these recent reforms has been inadequate, and many athletes and other participants remain unaware of key
changes meant to improve their experience. Morethan half of high-performance athletes surveyed by
the Commission—55%—could not name a single
recent reform within the movement. Even morecoaches—65%—responded the same. Similar numbers among USOPC and governing-body staff werealso indicative of problems communicating information about these reforms across the movement.
(The only group surveyed in which a majority of
respondents said they were aware of these reforms
were USOPC and governing-body executives.)
Such a lack of awareness contributes to the feelingFindingsof mistrust we encountered among many athletes,
coaches, and other participants in the movement’s
governing institutions and in the guardrails meant
to protect them. Indeed, it is easy to understandparticipants’ concerns and their lack of awarenesswhen reforms have been undertaken in a piecemeal
fashion and have failed to address systemic challenges that defy simple solutions.
Public perceptions of these recent reforms also show
a need for further action. Nearly half of parents—and
52% of all Americans—in our national survey told usthat the safety reforms implemented in the wake ofsexual-abuse scandals did not go far enough to prevent future abuse. Five out of ten agreed that otherreforms to the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement over the past six years were also insufficient.
Majorities of respondents who identified as Republicans, Democrats, and independents all felt thesame. While 31% of Americans surveyed shared that
their perception of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
movement had improved since 2017, still 46% said
it had not changed, and 12% report a more negative
view now. It is clear that Americans broadly agree
more work is needed to confront systemic failings in
the governance of this movement.

119

120

Recommendations
INTRODUCTION
In its authorizing legislation, Congress tasked theCommission with making “a detailed statement offindings, conclusions, recommendations, and suggested policy changes.”300 The recommendations
that follow, based on the findings set out above, reflect the Commission’s determination to re-envision
what the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement
can be for participants and for our country if better
structured and supported by policymakers. Nothing short of reconceptualizing of our sports landscape can set our country on the path to achieving
the goals Congress has repeatedly outlined and that
the American people continue to expect.
In spite of all the rhetoric around “amateurism,”
Olympic- and Paralympic-movement sports are,without a doubt, a lucrative national and international industry. The Constitution’s Commerce
Clause301 continues to provide Congress with theauthority to regulate this industry and establish
mechanisms for public oversight. When contemplating the different ways to improve public oversight of sports, Congress has an array of options.
These range from the most aggressive—bringing
more functions currently assigned to private or
quasi-governmental entities under direct federal purview—to the least, such as simply allowing
lawsuits to be filed against USOPC or NGBs and
PSOs. Currently, Congress permits only arbitration in many dispute cases, which does not carry
the same incentivizing effect as litigation or the
threat of litigation in state or federal courts. Whileprivate arbitration can be an effective solution for
resolving disputes, it is not the most effective public-oversight mechanism. The Commission considered these factors in making its recommendations.

ians, coaches, advocates, and others have a criticalrole to play in addressing the challenges currently
plaguing the movement and taking steps to reshapeit. Indeed, among the Commission’s recommendations are a number of steps that these stakeholders
ought to undertake alongside actions by lawmakers,
including recommendations for states that fall outside Congress’s Constitutional authority as a resultof the Tenth Amendment. It is Congress, however,that must take the greatest responsibility in charting a course forward and making essential statutory corrections to the design, governance, andaccountability of the system by which it oversees
the coordination and development of Olympic andParalympic sports in the United States. How Congress proceeds with these suggested policy changes will determine whether we can build successful
sports policy around a vision for athlete-centered,safe, equitably accessible, and accountable pursuitof the Olympic and Paralympic ideals that inspire
millions of our people and showcase American
sporting excellence.
Recommendation #1: Congress should limit USOPC’s
purpose to focusing on high-performance athletes
and create a new federal office to coordinate anddevelop youth and grassroots movement sports.
KEY POINTS:•

Create a new HHS Office of Sports and Fitness
to support the coordination and developmentof youth and grassroots sports nationwide.

• The new office should set standards and leading practices, research and publish participation data and trends, and provide assistance
Congress is not alone in bearing responsibility forto governing bodies in their responsibilities
the future of this movement. Stakeholders ranging
toward youth and grassroots sports.
from sports officials, athletes, parents or guard300

Pub. L. 117-189.

301

U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 3.

121

•

Congress should appropriate annual funding
for this new office to support youth- and grassroots-sports development through competitive federal grants.

cannot be all things to all people.” They have beencorrect. USOPC has failed to achieve a major component of the purpose laid out for it by Congressin the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports
Act. However, this is as much Congress’s responsi• USOPC should focus on high-performance
bility as USOPC’s, and it is Congress’s to fix. At theathletes and its role as the NOC and NPC toearliest opportunity, Congress should amend thecertify governing bodies.
Act to remove responsibility for youth- and grassroots-sports coordination, promotion, and develFor more than four decades, Congress has tasked opment from USOPC and allow it focus on what
USOPC with coordinating and developing all Olym- it has always done best: helping American athletes
pic and Paralympic sports in our country, from the win Olympic, Paralympic, Pan-American, Parahighest-performing levels of international competi- pan-American, and world-championship medals.
tion all the way down the pipeline to early-childhood
sports programs. This mandate has been unfunded With responsibility for high-performance athletes
and unworkable, and from the start USOPC has and competition in the hands of USOPC, Congress
never fully embraced its broader mission. In fact, it must then take steps to construct a new architecture
cannot do so, because a substantial segment of youth for youth and grassroots sports development in our
sports is no longer formally affiliated with the Olym- country that serves as both a pipeline for high-perpic and Paralympic movement. Repeatedly, USOPC formance talent and a pipeline for the better healthhas expressed to Congress that it cannot provide and other benefits we know sports promote in ourboth robust support and coordination to youth and communities. This begins with the establishment ofgrassroots sports while also directing resources to a new federal office within HHS to operate as a cenAmerica’s high-performance athletes. The result is tral clearinghouse for youth- and grassroots-sports
what Congress found to be a ‘medals and money’ coordination, promotion, development, and grantethos while millions of our nation’s children are left based funding. It would also play a role in providing
on the sidelines.
public accountability to governing bodies as they
serve youth and grassroots athletes and develop
As a parent of an athlete expressed to the Commis- their sports through higher standards of coachingsion in one of our focus groups:
and organized competition.
We’re operating so far below our potential inthis country, in terms of empowering our youth
athletes to participate in these sports. And then,of course, the result of that is we’re underperforming in Olympics as a country. …We should
seize this opportunity to reflect on the fact that
we are not supporting our athletes the way weshould—and that there’s a better way forward.

In every other nation there exists some government
ministry, agency, or bureau to regulate and oversee
sports policy at all levels; however, that is not what
this Commission envisions for our country. For avariety of reasons both political and cultural, Americans have never desired such a direct, formal government role in overseeing sports policy. This has
been the case even as Congress asserted its responsibility to establish a quasi-governmental sports
There is a better way forward indeed. For years, regulator in USOPC and maintains interest in overUSOPC executives have told policymakers: “We sight through hearings and investigations like the122

Recommendations

one undertaken by this Commission. Moreover, thecreation of USADA and the statutory authorizationfor SafeSport continue to show that Congress sees
a role for itself in this space. It is time for Congressto accept that, while we will never have a ‘ministryof sport’ model in this country, the federal government has more of a role to play in ensuring safety,
equity, accessibility, and accountability in sports
than it has so far acknowledged and accepted.

Additionally, OSF would oversee the distribution ofcompetitive grants to state and local governments,
sport governing bodies, and community-based
nonprofit organizations that support increased
public access to youth and grassroots sports andthat promote sports development. These would include targeted grants to help state and local governments to develop new sport offerings that broaden
accessibility to movement sports among children
and adults with disabilities. The new office, in coThe establishment of a new Office of Sports and Fit- ordination with the U.S. Department of Education,ness (OSF), led by a Senate-confirmed Assistant Sec- would also set uniform national safety standards forretary for HHS, would strike this balance and improve youth-sports programs serving children ages twelve
the way Congress delivers on the original promise and and under, including through school programs.
purposes of the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Further, OSF would be tasked with promoting leadSports Act. Though not replacing the current Presi- ing practices for the administration of sports anddent’s Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition, which fitness programs as well as designing and publicizwould continue to operate as an advisory body and to ing national strategies for improving Americans’promote its ideals to the public, some of the Council’s access to sports and fitness in their communities.
functions would move to OSF. These include tracking
This new federal office will only be successful, however, if Congress steps up with
It is time for Congress to accept that, whileannual appropriations sufficient to meetnational
goals. In 1977, the President’s
we will never have a ‘ministry of sport’ modelCommission recommended that Congressin this country, the federal government has
provide $83 million in public funding as anmore of a role to play in ensuring safety, equity,
initial investment to help USOPC meet its
accessibility, and accountability in sports thanmandate to coordinate and develop moveit has so far acknowledged and accepted.
ment sports at all levels across the country. Those funds were never provided, andnow forty-six years have passed without
and publishing annual data relating to national and any substantial federal support to promote Amerregional youth-sports engagement and equitable-ac- icans’ sports participation, expand opportunities
cess trends as well as promoting national goals for fit- in underserved communities, or protect athletes’
ness and sports participation by Americans, such as safety and well-being. This must change. The Unitfurther updates to the National Youth Sports Strategy. ed States remains the only nation in which sports
Given the gaps the Commission observed in diversity programs serving the public, particularly for youth,
reporting shared by USOPC and the governing bod- have no regular, substantial public funding support
ies, particularly with regard to intersectional data, it on the national level.
would be beneficial to have an office like OSF tasked
with better collecting and disseminating demograph- Nations demonstrate what they value when govic information useful to Congress and movement ernments re-invest in their people. Congress has
stakeholders. It is also within this OSF that a national made it clear for decades that Americans’ equitasports policy ought to be formulated and published to ble access to sports and fitness in a safe environguide and set goals for near-term, medium-term, and ment is a public value. The time has come for the
long-term sports development in our country. Such federal budget to reflect this value. To that end, thea policy would encourage and guide states to design Commission strongly advises Congress and theAdministration to work together to identify a sufand adopt their own as well.

Recommendations

ficient level of appropriations through the annual
Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations legislation
to facilitate Americans’ greater access to sports inthe communities where they live—and increasethat amount on a yearly basis as demand grows.

123

engage in a restructuring of this system, the Commission urges policymakers to outline specificallywhat roles and responsibilities belong to USOPC,
the governing bodies, OSF, and any other entities sothat there is no ambiguity. Furthermore, governing
bodies’ roles in coordinating with USOPC to identiOnce Congress establishes this new federal of- fy high-performance athletes must be clearly delinfice to assume responsibility for the coordination eated in order to ensure that those who work hardand development of youth and grassroots sports, and demonstrate excellence have their fair chance to
USOPC’s mandate would narrow. USOPC would train and compete at the highest levels.
remain the U.S. National Olympic Committee andU.S. National Paralympic Committee under IOC and Recommendation #2: Congress should make SafeSIPC rules, respectively, and would continue to certify port fully independent so that it can regain athletes’
governing bodies, taking into account recommenda- trust and be held more accountable to the movement
tions from OSF evaluating their services for youth and the public.
and grassroots participants. Its central responsibility would continue to be providing governing bodies KEY POINTS:
with services, to help them identify our high-performance athletes, and to aid in fostering the best • Make SafeSport independent by providing it
environment for the development of championswith annual direct Congressional appropriawho can bring medals home for the United States.
tions, drawing on USADA as a model for sucIt would still oversee the selection process of teams
cessful public-private funding.
and athletes to represent the United States in international competition and arrange for their travel. • Congress should ensure a substantial inUSOPC would also continue to provide high-perforcrease in SafeSport’s funding so it can hire
mance athletes—whom it would designate accordmore investigators and clear its backlog withing to clearly communicated and transparent benchless of an incentive to dismiss cases adminismarks—with health insurance benefits, stipends andtratively.
other financial support, and opportunities for specialized training at its facilities.
Every athlete, coach, referee, trainer, and staff member participating in the U.S. Olympic and ParalymIn short, USOPC would no longer have to be “all pic movement deserves a safe environment, freethings to all people.” Instead, it could focus on what from physical and emotional abuse, harassment,
it has always viewed as its core mission: to support hazing, or bullying. That ethos must always be at
the high-performance athletes who represent us in the center of U.S. sports and remains at the coreinternational competition. The result will be a bet- of the Commission’s work. That is why, in our view,ter-prepared and more competitive Team USA to it is essential to have a fully independent, effective,
bring home medals—without jeopardizing long- and accountable entity charged with ensuring safeterm investments in our sports pipeline and in the ty in sports and addressing misconduct claims fairgrowth and development of movement sports across ly and in a timely manner.
the country.
Since its creation, SafeSport has been tasked with
With the responsibilities for high-performance and that mission. For just as long, it has been unable
youth and grassroots being handled by separate enti- to carry out that mission effectively because of sevties, close and constant coordination among USOPC, eral factors. The most impactful of these has been
OSF, and other stakeholders in overseeing move- a lack of sufficient independence, with SafeSport
ment sports in our country will be even more essen- continuing to rely on grants from USOPC, resulttial. That’s why, no matter how Congress chooses to ing in a perception among athletes that SafeSport

124

Recommendations

defers to USOPC and governing bodies’ interests,
reputation, and performance goals. Another factor,
as outlined in our findings, has been woefully insufficient funding. Even with the increased statutory
requirement of $20 million annually in grants from
USOPC under the 2020 legislation, SafeSport does
not have nearly enough resources or staff to complete the tasks under its Congressional mandate. In
its first year alone, SafeSport received thousandsof claims, leaving it operating with a backlog it has
still been unable to clear. The result has been cases dragging on for months and even years, leaving
both complainants and subjects in limbo as claims
sit unresolved. Meanwhile, too many cases areclosed administratively without possible abusers
being found responsible, sanctioned, and added to
SafeSport’s Centralized Disciplinary Database.
In short, given the volume of cases building overdecades and the sudden influx of claims upon its
launch, SafeSport has never been able to find its footing. It must not, however, be allowed to become an
enduring example of failure. In our discussions withstakeholders from across the movement, including
victims and those who have been heavily involved in
SafeSport processes—as well as through testimony
shared by athletes, parents and guardians, coaches,and others deeply concerned about safety in sports—

than eight in ten athletes and coaches agreeing thatsafety is “extremely important.” That entity, however,must work effectively. Though some have expressed
to us the view that SafeSport ought to be dismantled
and replaced entirely, the Commission believes not
only that it is salvageable but that SafeSport has elements in place already that could help transform it
into a positive and trusted entity within U.S. sports.
Indeed, 70% of high-performance athletes in our
survey agreed that SafeSport as it currently operates
is at least somewhat effective. Starting over fromscratch would further jeopardize athletes’ safety as a
new entity is stood up, a process that would be bothtime-consuming and disruptive. Instead, Congress
ought to take the opportunity now to learn fromthe missteps of SafeSport’s initial years and address
shortcomings so that it can become the independentagency movement participants need and deserve.
For an example of success worth emulating, Congressneed look no further than USADA. Like SafeSport,
USADA had its origins in crisis. Like SafeSport, itbegan with steps initially taken internally by USOPC.
Moreover, like SafeSport, USADA has a broad jurisdiction across the movement and the power to sanction or even permanently ban individuals from participating as a result of conduct incongruous withthe movement’s rules and values. However, outsideof those similarities, the differences
have been monumental.

...The Commission has heard again and again that theanswer is not to abandon SafeSport but to rescue it.
the Commission has heard again and again that theanswer is not to abandon SafeSport but to rescue it.
In her testimony at the Commission’s public hearing, SafeSport CEO Ju’Riese Colón reminded us that
“nothing like the U.S. Center for SafeSport has ever existed before” its launch in 2017, “…with only four employees, and by the end of that year we had received
nearly 300 reports of abuse and misconduct, morethan anyone imagined and definitely more than wewere prepared to handle.” Much has been built overthat time, progress that must not be lost.
Movement participants strongly agree that an entity like SafeSport is desperately needed, with more

While USADA receives the majorityof its funding from federal appropriations and program fees, SafeSport
continues to depend on mandated USOPC grants.
Where USADA’s independence has led to broad trustin that entity by athletes, coaches, and the American public, the opposite has been true for SafeSport.
Athletes and their parents or guardians simply do
not believe that SafeSport will protect minors fromabuse, and many of those who have directly interacted with SafeSport through a reporting process feel
only further traumatized by that experience. With
too few investigators to clear its backlog and handle
incoming cases—along with several flawed incentives that place victims at a disadvantage in the system—it is no surprise that SafeSport isn’t working as
Congress intended.

Recommendations

The most impactful step Congress can take to remedy
the problem is to increase SafeSport’s annual funding
substantially—while ensuring it can keep pace withmovement growth and inflation—and provide those
funds directly through appropriations. In the 1990’s,
Congress recognized that protecting sports from theinsidious effects of performance-enhancing drugs isenough of a public value to invest in an independent,
government-supported agency to combat doping.
Since then, USADA has been an unqualified success.
One need look no further than USOPC CEO Sarah
Hirshland herself to make this comparison and offera strong endorsement of adopting USADA’s funding
model for SafeSport. In 2019, she told attendees at
USOPC’s annual assembly:
We’ve also asked Congress to invest in [SafeSport] in the same manner that it invests in USADA. We understand the questions regarding
independence when the center’s sole source offunding is the community it is designed to police, and we believe this is an urgent national
priority that requires the full support of thefederal government.302

125

the long waits for disciplinary action or exoneration by claimants and subjects, respectively. Moreover, additional staff would help reduce incentives
to dismiss cases administratively without resolution. This has happened far too often, and the number of cases closed in this way is among the mostalarming evidence that SafeSport is failing those it
has been established to protect.
With direct Congressional support, SafeSportshould no longer be funded by USOPC. This change
would not only allow the former to be truly independent; it would permit the latter to recoup $20
million a year earned through its trademark revenues. It should then be required to reinvest those
funds in our high-performance athletes throughadditional stipends and support, helping to improve conditions that too often contribute to athletes’ vulnerability to abuse.
Recommendation #3: Congress should reform
certain SafeSport practices and reimagine the way
SafeSport operates at the youth and grassroots level.
KEY POINTS:

In recent years, Congress has made it clear that, likesafeguarding fair play and the integrity of sports, •protecting vulnerable athletes from sexual and other forms of abuse—particularly minor athletes—isalso a public value. Indeed, in its decision in Gilbertv. U.S. Olympic Committee, the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado noted that “Congresshas placed SafeSport in a position of profound public trust.”303 This being the case, Congress must in- •vest public resources in making sure athlete safety
is addressed with the same seriousness with which
our nation has approached anti-doping.
Significantly increasing SafeSport’s funding would
enable the hiring of more investigators who could
address the backlog while cutting down on the •time needed to evaluate claims and resolve cases.
Among the top reasons athletes, coaches, and staff
have cited for a lack of confidence in SafeSport are
the lengthy delays in its investigation of claims andGoverning bodies should no longer pay into
SafeSport based on caseload, and SafeSportshould no longer be permitted to close cases
administratively simply because a victim declines to participate in the investigative process.
SafeSport should include greater consideration of candidates’ experience with trauma
cases when hiring investigators and shouldseek to include more with prior experience associal workers and victim advocates in its candidate pool.
Congress should consider two proposals forchanging the way SafeSport operates at theyouth- and grassroots-sports level: a regional
system for handling these cases with the possibility of appeal to the national office in the

302 Sarah Hirshland, “General Address,” transcript of speech delivered to the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Assembly, Colorado Springs,
CO, September 12, 2019.
303

2019 WL 10252758 (D. Colo. 2019).

126

Recommendations

most egregious cases; and an accreditation
system by which youth- and grassroots-sports
organizations are encouraged to become
accredited by SafeSport by meeting certain
safety benchmarks and participating in theCentralized Disciplinary Database.
• The NCAA is encouraged to require its member institutions to share information with
SafeSport about sanctioned or dismissed individuals in certain cases for inclusion in theCentralized Disciplinary Database. Similarly,
SafeSport should be required to notify theNCAA and its member institution when it adds
an affiliated individual to its Centralized Disciplinary Database.

This dangerous and misguided policy must end.
What governing bodies should be required to do,though, is develop unifying language to clarify thereporting pathway and simplify the delineation ofreporting guidelines so that there aren’t different
standards across sports as to when a matter rises tothe level of making a claim.
SafeSport should, additionally, be prohibited fromclosing cases administratively just because a victim
chooses not to participate in the investigative process. The burden of determining whether an abusive or malign individual has been allowed access toathletes should not fall to victims; rather, it must be
SafeSport’s responsibility to investigate all claims
that have merit until a determination can be madeconcerning a subject’s possible sanctioning or removal. When a victim chooses not to risk re-traumatization by engaging with SafeSport’s process,that fact alone cannot justify an administrative
closure without a proper investigation. Additionally, Congress should consider an alternative dispute-resolution mechanism, other than the commercial-arbitration model used by USOPC, better
tailored to the sensitivities concerning abuse cases.
This might include an arbitration panel composedof subject-matter experts and individuals trained intrauma-informed practices

Once Congress has made SafeSport fully independent by providing it with public funding and sufficient resources to carry out its mission, lawmakers must also take steps to address failings in theway SafeSport operates. Having found that certain
SafeSport practices deter victims from coming forward, make it harder to keep abusers from finding
new targets, and fall short of providing sufficient
safety education, the Commission recommends
that Congress take steps to reform SafeSport practices and processes so that these shortcomings areresolved. We are also encouraging stronger coordination to ensure the safety of those
who move between movement and
If governing bodies have problems with abuse, thecollegiate sports contexts.

answer is not to impose a tax on reporting abuse.

Governing bodies, first and foremost,should no longer be required to pay
into SafeSport, especially not using a formula basedon the number of cases SafeSport handles for eachone. With Congress providing direct appropriations, it should no longer be necessary for governing bodies to contribute to SafeSport at all. This
policy of contributions based on caseload has had
the effect of incentivizing governing bodies to deter
athletes from filing claims. Indeed, it discourages
everything that would be a leading practice, fromgenerating awareness of problematic behaviors that
could prompt complaints to preventing cover-ups.
If governing bodies have problems with abuse, theanswer is not to impose a tax on reporting abuse.

When it comes to arbitration—with regard both to
SafeSport decisions and to those adjudicating other processes within the movement, such as Section
Nine and Section Ten cases—the Commission also
recommends that arbitrators be permitted to award
the reimbursement of legal expenses in order toprevent any party from attempting to deter or stall
the process through the threat of higher attorney
costs. This runs counter to the spirit of arbitration
as an expedient method of dispute resolution, andit shortchanges athletes seeking redress. In its 1977
report, the President’s Commission recommended the adoption of independent arbitration so that

Recommendations

127

disputes could be “readily and expeditiously resolved.”304 Allowing arbitrators to award legal expenses would help uphold that original intent foran expeditious process in every case.

greater effort to ensure that all the investigators on
its staff and all the arbitrators with whom it contracts
understand that cases are to be decided on a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Another step the Commission suggests, in order tohelp SafeSport turn the page to a new chapter, isfor at least a third of its board members be selectedfrom among current or retired high-performanceathletes who have not previously been employed
as staff by SafeSport, USOPC, any of the governing
bodies, or USADA. In his testimony to the Commission at our public hearing, USADA’s CEO Travis Tygart explained why such a firewall is so vital:

It is essential to the successful resolution of cases thatboth parties—claimant and respondent—participate
in the investigation process. One loophole that wehave identified in SafeSport’s process is that respondents are neither strictly required to furnish information to SafeSport investigators during the discovery phase of a case nor to share their defense until
a case is heard in arbitration. As a result, it is possible that investigators could spend weeks or months
gathering information from a victim of abuse andissue a decision, only to have an arbitrator overturnthat decision because the respondent to that claim
shares new information during an arbitration hearing that investigators were never able to consider orverify. While the Commission did not find examplesof this having occurred, we believe this is an issue
requiring further study, either by SafeSport as it reviews its policies to ensure they are consistent withits mission or by an independent Team USA Athletes’
Commission as part of an expanded mandate to audit movement processes affecting athletes’ well-being (See Recommendation #6).

The most important reason for our successis our independence. The word independentis thrown around a lot in the Olympic andParalympic movement. From our experiencehowever, the only true definition of independence is that those who govern or otherwise
make decisions affecting others cannot have aninterest, actual or perceived, in the outcome ofthe decisions that they’re making. No USADA
board member or staff member can serve inany paid or voluntary governing or employment capacity with an organization that we
provide services to. You simply cannot havethe fox guarding the hen house.
Even further, we encourage the SafeSport Board of
Directors to consider candidates’ past personal experience with surviving abuse when evaluating individuals for future open board positions.

Another factor hindering SafeSport’s success has
been a perception that its compliance and training
requirements are neither serious nor effective—aswell as that it does not take sufficient steps to ensure participants’ full adherence to requirements
or to promote wider awareness of its Centralized
Disciplinary Database. SafeSport must take action
to strengthen its safety trainings, ensure that movement institutions take the trainings of all participants seriously, and provide for the daily updating of
the database. The Centralized Disciplinary Databasehas the potential to be one of the most powerful andeffective tools for preventing future abuse and misconduct, and SafeSport must make its success a toppriority.

Likewise, SafeSport should place a greater priority
on hiring investigative staff with direct experiencein trauma cases. This might include social workers
and those who have worked with victim advocacy organizations. We have heard from a number of
those currently or previously involved in a SafeSport
reporting process that investigators, though professional, too often fail to grasp sensitivities of the typesof cases they handle, which in turn discourages victims of abuse from carrying their cases through to With responsibility to coordinate and develop
conclusion and deters others from coming forward. youth and grassroots sports moved from USOPC
It is also essential for SafeSport leaders to make a to the new HHS Office of Sports and Fitness, the304

U.S. Government Printing Office, The Final Report of the President’s Commission on Olympic Sports, 21.

128

Recommendations

way SafeSport handles claims in those areas shouldchange. While the Commission heard from somewithin the movement who believe that SafeSportshould only have jurisdiction over the high-performance athletes under the umbrella of USOPC, in
our view that would be a mistake. Participants atevery level of the movement deserve safety protections and ought to have access to SafeSport’s systemof seeking remedy in cases of misconduct. Those
who perpetrate abuse should not be shielded simply by moving from situations in which they haveaccess to Olympic and Paralympic competitors to
those in which they are involved in youth clubs andleagues. However, it would be far too burdensome
on SafeSport to be the clearinghouse for any and allcomplaints of SafeSport Code violations throughout the entire movement, which consists of morethan 11 million participants across all fifty states.
That’s why the Commission recommends that Congress consider adopting one of the following two
proposals to reform the way SafeSport operates inthe youth- and grassroots-sports environment.

The Centralized Disciplinary Database has
the potential to be one of the most powerfuland effective tools for preventing future
abuse and misconduct, and SafeSport
must make its success a top priority.
The first option would be to implement a regional system for handling claims by those outside thehigh-performance athlete community. SafeSport
would be directed to open regional or even statebased SafeSport centers to serve as the first pointsof contact for those wishing to submit claims. These
regional or state-based centers would conduct investigations and handle the resolution of claims
arising within their areas of jurisdiction, with thenational SafeSport apparatus available to hear appeals in certain, specified types of cases. In such away, claims would be more quickly addressed where
they are made, and the national SafeSport staff
would be able to focus on resolving cases involving
high-performance athletes training for international competition. As an alternative to having SafeSport establish regional or state-based offices itself,

Congress might consider exercising its authority
under Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution topermit compacts among states for the purposes of
establishing regional sports-safety institutions independent of SafeSport but working closely with itto ensure the most efficient and effective means ofprotecting athletes at the youth and grassroots levels in our country.
The second option for Congress’s consideration
would be to adopt a market-based approachthrough a system of SafeSport ‘accreditation’ foryouth- and grassroots-sports organizations. While
SafeSport would continue to hear and resolve
claims for high-performance athletes, it would nolonger do so outside that space. Instead, it would bedirected to design and implement an ‘accreditation’program by which any youth- or grassroots-sports
organization could become accredited by SafeSport by meeting certain benchmarks. These would
include having a minimum percentage of its coaches trained through an official SafeSport program,committing to abide by the SafeSport Code andpublished guidelines for leading practices, andscreening all coaches and volunteers who interact with minors through criminal backgroundchecks and SafeSport’s Centralized Disciplinary
Database as well as through state and federal
sex-offender registries. Importantly, those seeking accreditation would be required to sharewith SafeSport the names of any individuals in theirorganizations who have been found responsible forabuse or misconduct by local authorities relating totheir engagement with the sports organization sothat these names could be added to the Centralized
Disciplinary Database. Organizations wishing tomaintain SafeSport accreditation would have to reapply for it regularly and continue to demonstratethat they are meeting the required benchmarks.
Stakeholders, particularly parents and guardiansof minor athletes, would be encouraged throughpublic awareness campaigns by SafeSport, USOPC,
and OSF, to be discerning consumers and only participate in movement sports through organizations
that maintain SafeSport accreditation. As a result,the consumer marketplace should encourage moreregional and community sports clubs and leagues—
whether operating through a governing body or asRecommendations

129

a private entity outside the system—to seek SafeS- tions and process changes…” SafeSport, in our view,
port accreditation and comply voluntarily with the is ready and willing to grow and adapt. It is up to
SafeSport Code and leading safety practices. Par- Congress to make that change possible and set theticularly with the requirement to participate in and parameters for SafeSport to become the institution
make use of the Centralized Disciplinary Database, it was always intended to be.
this would make it more difficult for those who havebeen sanctioned for misconduct to find opportuni- Recommendation #4: The terms “amateur” andties to come into contact with minors.
“amateurism” should finally be retired from the U.S.
Olympic and Paralympic movement, and athletes’
Just as important as ensuring that SafeSport can rights should be enshrined in law.
protect participants at the youth and grassroots
level is making certain that athletes are safe when KEY POINTS:
engaging in collegiate sports. With so many of ournation’s high-performance athletes moving seam- • Congress should amend the Ted Stevens
lessly between sport contexts, from NCAA events
Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to remove
and programs to those overseen by USOPC andthe terms “amateur” and “amateurism” fromgoverning bodies, it is essential that athletes not
the statute. The legislation’s name should
enjoy SafeSport protections one day but lose them
be changed to the Ted Stevens Olympic andthe next. Thankfully, students at our nation’s colParalympic Sports Act.
leges and universities have anonymous reporting
mechanisms and other channels to report safety vi- • USOPC, governing bodies, and all movement
olations as well as standing under law to bring civil
stakeholders should cease using these terms
actions in court in order to seek redress for abuse
entirely, as they do not describe a specific typeand misconduct. For that reason, the Commissionof sport or athletes in this context, and they obdoes not believe it is necessary to consider extendscure the fact that high-performance athletes
ing SafeSport’s jurisdiction to collegiate sports.
train with the same dedication and time comHowever, a major safety gap must be closed. We
mitment as professional athletes and yieldstrongly encourage the NCAA to create a mechasubstantial benefits to the nation.
nism by which its individual member institutions
are required to report timely information to SafeS- • Congress should recognize under law thatport about the dismissal or sanctioning of staff orathletes participating in movement sports
participants in their athletic programs for reasons
have certain fundamental rights, including: asafe environment free from abuse and haconsistent with SafeSport Code violations. Thatrassment; name, image, and likeness rights;
way, the names of such individuals could be includthe right to seek redress free from retaliation;
ed in SafeSport’s Centralized Disciplinary Database.
timely information about national-team-selecLikewise, SafeSport should be required to notify thetion competition events posted in advance; anNCAA and a member institution directly when anaffordable fee structure for national-team-seaffiliated individual is added to its database. Closlection competition events; and a timely ander coordination between SafeSport and the NCAA
cost-effective dispute-resolution process as
is essential to the success of the Centralized Disciit relates to competition and national-team seplinary Database.
lection.
In her testimony at the Commission’s hearing, Ms.
Colón made it clear that SafeSport is open to chang- • Congress should work to align health-insures: “We don’t have to stick to what we’ve done for theance coverage for athletes in movement andlast five years or what people did ten years ago, youcollegiate sports to ensure that none areknow, we’re able to chart our own path. …So we’repenalized or otherwise stripped of rights orcertainly open to suggestions and recommendabenefits when moving between these differ-

130

Recommendations

ent sport contexts and provide for expanded
coverage where necessary to ensure that athletes training full time to represent the UnitedStates have secure health-insurance coverage.

or Paralympic athlete. Calling them ‘amateurs’ hasallowed sports officials to deny high-performanceathletes basic rights, adequate financial support,
and even safety protections. Indeed, calling theseathletes ‘amateurs’ has imposed burdens that negatively impact their ability to focus on achieving in
From the very beginnings of the global Olympic their sports. ‘Amateurism’ has, in many ways, limmovement, which is rooted in the ideal of uni- ited America’s medal potential while undercutting
versal access to sports’ many benefits, the notion our athletes’ potential for accessing the financial
that the pursuit of movement sports requires a security and stability that ensures a robust athletecommitment to ‘amateurism’ has been used to ex- pipeline and protects athletes’ ability to focus on
clude those not wealthy enough or well-connected excellence in their sports.
enough to afford participation. Historically, it has
been used to limit athlete eligibility and infringe on...‘Amateurism’ has, in many ways,
athletes’ right to earn income or access financial
limited America’s medal potential...
support in connection with their athletic training
and performance. Indeed, these terms have been
harnessed to punish unfairly those who did not This Commission very strongly recommends
abide by this highly limiting and exclusionary defi- that the terms ‘amateur’ and ‘amateurism’ be fulnition of ‘amateurism.’ In a notable example in 1912, ly retired from use across the U.S. Olympic and
Jim Thorpe—one of the most celebrated athletes Paralympic movement. In addition to the comin American history and the first Native American pelling reasons stated above, these terms no lonto medal for our country at the Olympics—saw ger have utility within sports because they do not
his gold medals in the pentathlon and decathlon convey any particular level or type of sport. They
events at the Stockholm Olympics that summer in- are merely vestiges of outdated attitudes toward
validated by the IOC because he had briefly played athletes that no longer make sense in twenty-first
professional minor-league baseball. This misguid- century movement sports, which has now long
ed attitude has trickled down from the pinnacle of welcomed those who previously would have been
high-performance competition all the way to com- ineligible because of involvement in professional
munity centers and public sports fields, where our sports. Congress should set the tone by amending
pay-to-play system keep many young Americans the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act
out of movement sports because their families can- to remove references to these terms from statutenot afford the high and rising costs. Most problem- and from the title of the legislation itself. Indeed, it
atic, though, is how many of the movement-sports should seize the opportunity to right two wrongs
athletes who rise to the top of our pipeline still face in the name of the Act by replacing “Amateur” withhardship and added adversity within the system “Paralympic.” Likewise, USOPC, governing bodies,because they cannot afford to pursue their sports and stakeholders should cease using the terms “amfull-time as an avocation. That, however, is what a ateur” and “amateurism,” helping lead a broader efculture of ‘amateurism’ in movement sports histor- fort to change the culture of movement sports that
ically has demanded, and it is what use of the term reflects the reality of our high-performance athletes without the historical baggage of a label imtoday still assumes.
plying that their dedication to the task is merely an
Continuing to refer to athletes in movement avocation and not a full-time commitment.
sports as ‘amateurs’ contributes to a culture where
USOPC and governing bodies—and, indeed, we Ending the use of these inaccurate—and now subas a nation—may fail to appreciate fully the enor- stantively empty—terms is but the first step. It must
mous commitment and sacrifice it takes to be a be matched with policy changes that reflect thetwenty-first century high-performance Olympic same commitment to putting athletes at the cen-

Recommendations

ter of the movement and ensuring that their rights
and contributions are respected. Congress should
recognize that athletes in our country, when participating in the movement sports that Congresshas accepted as having a public value and requiring
public oversight, hold certain fundamental rights.
Rights that athletes participating in movement
sports should have include: 1) the right to train,practice, and compete in a safe environment, freefrom abuse, harassment, or bullying; 2) the rightto own and market their names, images, and likenesses; 3) the right to seek redress free from retaliation; 4) the right to timely information posted
well in advance regarding national-team-selection
processes within their sports and the calendar of
required competition events in those selection processes; 5) the right to an affordable fee structure forparticipating in national-team-selection competition events; and 6) the right to a timely dispute
resolution as it relates to competition and national-team selection. Congress ought to enshrine inlaw the basic rights athletes in the U.S. Olympic
and Paralympic movement hold. For too long thelack of a clear delineation of these rights has beenused to deny them.
In addition to delineating these rights, Congressshould take action to alleviate one of the most difficult
burdens facing athletes: ensuring steady health-insurance coverage. It is essential that Congress work toalign health-insurance coverage for athletes in movement and collegiate sports in order to ensure that no
athlete is penalized or otherwise stripped of rights
or benefits when moving between these different
sports contexts. Athletes representing Team USA ininternational competition should be given generous
grace periods around competition-event timeframeswith regard to health-insurance coverage. The Commission is encouraged by efforts currently underway in Congress to close NCAA loopholes regarding
health-insurance coverage for sports-related injuries.
If those efforts come to fruition, we urge that athletes
in movement sports are included under the same protections. Maintaining two systems with different criteria for coverage eligibility, guarantees for coverageof injury-related costs, and grace periods simply does
not work when many of the same individual athletes
are constantly moving between the two.

131

Recommendation #5: USOPC governanceprocesses must be improved.
KEY POINTS:•

USOPC should close loopholes that allow exceptions to the qualifications of ‘independent’members of its Board of Directors and makereforms to the Board’s Nominating and Governance Committee.

•

USOPC should adopt a rule by which a candidate meeting the required qualifications of theposition who is a former high-performanceathlete must be interviewed for every vacant
executive position.

•

Governing bodies should be reorganized intoa tiered system to facilitate a more equitable
and higher-impact distribution of resources
and requirements.

•

Congress should grant NGBs and PSOs ownership over their own unique trademarks even
as USOPC continues to possess rights overgeneral Olympic and Paralympic trademarks.

•

USOPC should consider contracting with aprofessional management organization to alleviate the human-resources burden placedon small- and medium-sized governing bodies.

•

USOPC should prohibit governing bodies fromusing USOPC-provided funds to supplement
Operation Gold payments through their own
podium prizes, and direct stipend support toathletes should be increased every four years
at a rate equal to the average increase in
USOPC executive compensation.

•

USOPC should create a standardized,
time-limited process for spinning off internallymanaged sports, and it should deepen its cooperation with the NCAA through cross-board
representation.

•

Congress should allow the voting bloc of tenyear athletes to choose anyone to represent

132

Recommendations

them on the USOPC and governing bodies’
boards, as long as at least one seat is held bya ten-year athlete.

mandatory cooling-off period prohibiting any candidate from being hired into an executive role who
has been an active high-performance athlete at any
point in the past two years. This will help reduce
Charged with overseeing the Olympic and Paralym- the incidence of situations in which current athletes
pic movement in our country, USOPC has a respon- are incentivized to side with USOPC or governingsibility to the public to operate as effectively, fairly, bodies in disputes against other athletes with theand successfully as possible. With the removal of promise of a lucrative job afterward.
its statutory mandate to coordinate and develop
movement sports at the youth and grassroots lev- Third, USOPC should transform the way it supports
el, USOPC would have an opportunity to address governing bodies. Currently, NGBs and PSOs are all
longstanding problems with its governance and treated alike by USOPC when it comes to providstrengthen its ability to serve athletes and govern- ing assistance as well as enforcing obligations. Thising bodies. Many of these reforms, however, need is the case despite vast differences among them in
not wait for Congress to take action through legis- participant size, staff resources, sponsorship revelation but can be carried out by USOPC itself.
nues, and public visibility. While a large governing
body like the U.S. Tennis Association has no shortFirst, USOPC should amend its Bylaws to change age of these, smaller ones like U.S.A. Curling do not.
the way that the ‘independent’ members of its Applying the same approach to all of them simply
Board of Directors are chosen in order to promote does not make sense. That’s why the Commission isgreater diversity of background and experience that recommending that Congress authorize USOPC towill benefit the movement. The Board’s Nominat- establish a tiered system for governing bodies withing and Governance Committee should have its different requirements for annual audits, reportmakeup and processes re-evaluated to ensure that ing, and other actions that place a heavy burden on
it can operate more independently of the rest of staff and resources. Likewise, these tiers would inthe Board on questions of membership and its in- form the way USOPC and the new OSF approach
fluence on USOPC decision-making. Furthermore, financial support, making certain funds and grants
the Bylaws should be updated to clarify the qual- available for those in each grouping. The tiers would
ifications for ‘independent’ directors, eliminating be based on the number of registered participants
ambiguous exceptions and closing loopholes that in each sport at all levels as well as the current state
have allowed the Board to ignore qualification bar- of each governing body’s sponsorship revenues.
riers for certain preferred candidates. In order to USOPC would be responsible for reviewing and upprovide for the broader consideration of differing dating which governing bodies belong in each tierperspectives and viewpoints, USOPC should also every four years, though an independent Team USA
ensure wider enfranchisement within constituent Athletes’ Commission (see Recommendation #6 begroups voting for Board representatives.
low) would have to agree on the criteria for athlete
funding and benefits made available to governing
Second, in order better to ensure the representa- bodies at each tier. Moreover, the NGB Council andtion of athletes’ views at the staff level, the Com- the independent Team USA Athletes’ Commission
mission also encourages USOPC to adopt a new would also have to approve all tier assignments.
hiring rule. Similar to the ‘Rooney Rule’ adopted by
the National Football League in 2002, such a rule Another important step forward to help governing
would demand that a retired high-performance bodies of any size succeed would be for Congress
athlete meeting the required qualifications of the to allow them to own their unique trademarks.
role must be interviewed for any executive posi- Currently, governing bodies must negotiate withtion that becomes vacant. This ought to be the case USOPC over the use of their specific marks, even
even if there is an internal candidate on track for those designed by the respective NGBs or PSOs andpromotion. Moreover, USOPC should impose a paid for using their own funds. Were they to hold

Recommendations

copyright over their own trademarks, governing
bodies would be further empowered to raise revenues independently of USOPC grants to support
the hiring of staff, coaches, and trainers as well as
to provide additional financial support to athletes.
Of course, USOPC would continue to control thetrademarks for general Olympic and Paralympic
terms and symbols.
The Commission encourages USOPC to consider
contracting with a professional management organization to offer services to smaller and medium-sized governing bodies. Staffing and human resources functions can be particularly burdensome
for governing bodies lacking the sponsorship revenues of larger, more popular sports. Consolidatingthese functions under a professional management
organization that can be shared across governing
bodies—for which USOPC can negotiate lower

If executives are going to be rewarded
for the success of America’s athletes, theathletes should reap those rewards too.
rates through a larger, grouped contract—would
save them money that could be redirected to support their high-performance athletes and development at the youth and grassroots levels.
Fourth, in some—but not all—sports, governing
bodies choose to supplement Operation Gold payments to medaling athletes with their own podium
prizes. Unsurprisingly, this has caused an imbalance
in medal-bonus revenues to athletes across different
sports. To help remedy this, the Commission recommends that USOPC limit governing bodies’ ability to extend supplementary medal bonuses outsideof Operation Gold using funds directly provided
by USOPC through high-performance agreements.
While this will not preclude governing bodies fromcontinuing the practice of supplementing payments,
it will ensure that they do not use their podium prizes as a backdoor to increase USOPC-funded medal
bonuses for their athletes at the expense of stipend
support for those in other sports. Moreover, USOPC
should commit to raising direct stipend support toathletes each quadrennium at the same rate as theaverage increase in its executives’ compensation

133

during that same period. If executives are going to be
rewarded for the success of America’s athletes, theathletes should reap those rewards too.
Another area where USOPC should make changes isin its handling of internally managed sports. These
sports, which do not have certified governing bodies
either because they are new or because their governing bodies have been decertified, must not beleft in limbo indefinitely. Indeed, there ought to bea standardized, time-limited pathway for USOPC
to transition internally managed sports over to governing bodies. If no organization seeks to become agoverning body for one of these sports by the end ofthat timeframe, USOPC should create one for it orarrange an agreement with another governing bodyto take that sport under its purview until such time
as it can stand on its own. One option might be to
combine two or more of the smallest sports within ajoint governing body for an interim period. Only
once an internally managed sport has been decoupled from USOPC can it truly engage in thekind of long-term planning needed to developthat sport for the benefit of athletes at all levels.
The Commission views internally managed sports
as an emergency necessity that must not be allowed
to become a long-term—or even medium-term—solution by default. In the same vein, if the process
of moving a sport out of internal management weremore clearly defined according to a standard timeframe, USOPC would find it easier to exercise—or
threaten to exercise—its authority to decertify governing bodies that are either delinquent on safety
standards or governance requirements (such as therule setting the minimum percentage of athlete representation on its board) as a means of enforcement.
Recognizing the highly integrated environment
among movement and collegiate sports, throughwhich so many athletes move back and forth regularly, the Commission believes USOPC would additionally be strengthened by expanding and deepening its cooperation with the NCAA. Both areencouraged to build on the good work of USOPC’s
Collegiate Advisory Council. Moreover, theyshould strongly consider inviting each other’s representatives to sit on their respective boards andcommittees. While history has given our country

134

Recommendations

two separate systems serving many of the same athletes, this does not preclude efforts to create a moreseamless training and competition environment for
those who participate in both.
•
Congress has a role in this reform process as well.
The Commission strongly recommends that lawmakers permit those in the ten-year-athlete voting
franchise to select any candidate of their choosing
to be their representatives on the boards of USOPC
and the governing bodies, eliminating the rule thatthey can choose only other ten-year athletes. However, at least one of the board members elected torepresent this group must still be a ten-year athlete.
Recommendation #6: Congress should strengthen
athletes’ representation by making the Team USA
Athletes’ Commission fully independent.
KEY POINTS:•

Congress should amend the Ted Stevens
Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to make theTeam USA Athletes’ Commission fully independent, clarify its duty to protect and empower
athletes, and ensure a steady revenue stream
to support the hiring of professional staff.

• The independent Team USA Athletes’ Commission should be empowered to raise and direct
funds to support athletes’ legal aid when involved in a process or dispute relating to their
participation in the movement. Its staff should
also maintain a list of trusted outside attorneys, including those willing to represent athletes on a pro bono basis, when athletes seek
representation.
•

Congress should provide the Team USA Athletes’ Commission with an explicit role in representing athletes’ concerns to USOPC, thegoverning bodies, SafeSport, and USADA on
issues relating to arbitration processes, athlete-funding criteria, team-selection criteria,
and national-team assignments.

• Team USA Athletes’ Commission staff should
be given the authority to conduct periodic au-

dits of movement institutions and processeson athletes’ behalf.
Even with this change, athlete representatives
through the Team USA Athletes’ Commission
should continue to be elected to the USOPC
Board of Directors and the boards of governing bodies, and nothing should preclude themfrom carrying out board responsibilities.

Congress should make the Team USA Athletes’ Commission fully independent so that it can be the mosttrusted and effective advocate possible for our nation’s high-performance athletes. In the decades sinceCongress enacted the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, numerous scandals have plagued
the movement and, as Congress has found, directly
harmed athletes. Many well-meaning measures havebeen attempted to ensure athletes in movement sports
are protected and have more control over the policies that hold great impact over their athletic careers.
None have proved fully effective, as the Commission
heard from athletes. Even with the reforms undertaken in response to sexual-abuse scandals, athletes
still often feel unsafe, unrepresented, and under-supported. The Commission believes that circumstances
now require that athletes have an independent organization dedicated solely to advocating on their behalf,
one that is not beholden to USOPC or the governing
bodies. It must fully belong to them and serve as theirresource in ensuring that their views and perspectives
carry appropriate weight within the movement’s governing institutions. As Team USA Athletes’ Commission Executive Director Elizabeth Ramsey testified
before our Commission:
Were it a completely independent body disconnected from the USOPC, Team USA AC would
be able to gain more athletes’ trust and have theautonomy to make decisions that benefit athletes
without oversight from the USOPC.
We must restore athletes’ trust in the one entity solely
answerable to them and charged with advocating on
their behalf. America’s Olympic and Paralympic athletes and hopefuls deserve no less than a Team USA
Athletes’ Commission that is empowered and effective. In order to achieve this, Congress must alter theRecommendations

135

Team USA Athletes’ Commission mandate in stat- This independent and empowered Team USA Athute and should make certain that it is independently letes’ Commission should have primary responsifunded.
bility for representing non-unionized athletes’ interests in interactions with USOPC and governing
The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act bodies over high-performance athletes’ financial
ought to be amended to make clear that the Team support, if any, and conditions of training and comUSA Athletes’ Commission has a duty to support and petition. Congress ought to stipulate specificallyprotect athletes’ rights, empower them through facili- that the Team USA Athletes’ Commission can raise
tating representation, and maximize athletes’ well-be- and direct funds to support athletes’ legal aid whening. Congress may wish to address athletes’ NIL rights involved in any process or dispute relating to theirand the role, if any, that the Team USA Athletes’ Com- participation in the movement, such as an arbitramission would have in supporting athletes during ne- tion process through SafeSport, USADA, USOPC,
gotiations over licensing agreements. It is essential or a governing body. While the organization shouldthat athletes know and trust this independent entity not directly provide legal representation to athletes
to work for them—and, if necessary, to fight for them. itself, its staff should maintain a list of trusted outside attorneys, particularly those willing to engage
There are several ways lawmakers might secure inde- in pro bono services, to whom it can refer athletes
pendent funding for the Team USA Athletes’ Com- seeking representation. The Team USA Athletes’
mission. At a minimum, an independent Team USA Commission should also be a place where athlete
Athletes’ Commission must be able to raise its own whistleblowers can safely and anonymously disfunds without the threat of those revenues being close information about malfeasance, with Teamclawed back by USOPC—as is currently the case USA Athletes’ Commission staff bound by rules tounder the organizations’ 2020 Memorandum of Un- protect their privacy and report such information
derstanding for certain funds provided to it. Some to the new public-oversight entity Congress esof the options for Congress include: permitting the tablishes (see Recommendation #7) or to relevantTeam USA Athletes’ Commission to solicit and ac- Congressional committees of jurisdiction. Once
cept tax-deductible private contributions; earmark- the Team USA Athletes’ Commission becomes fuling certain funds for it through the U.S. Olympic and ly independent, there will no longer be a need for
Paralympic Endowment; or requiring that a certain USOPC to maintain an Athlete Ombuds position,
percentage of revenues earned from the trademarks and it should be eliminated so as not to confuse
granted to USOPC through statute are first directed athletes as to where they can best find assistanceto support its budget. If the last of these, Congress when in need of it.
must adopt “Team USA,” which was trademarked independently by USOPC, into the list of trademarks Congress should also provide the Team USA Athletes’
defined as authorized to USOPC under statute—and Commission with explicit authority to negotiate onthus included alongside “Olympics,” “Paralympics,” behalf of athletes with USOPC, the governing bodthe rings, the agitos, and other movement-specific ies, SafeSport, and USADA. Its approval should bephrases and symbols. Congress may wish to start required when negotiating athlete-funding criteria,with this third option for an initial period of four or team-selection criteria and processes, and changes toeight years before revisiting the funding mechanism arbitration rules. Its assent should also be mandatoand adjusting it for the future in order to provide an ry, along with that of the NGB Council, when deterindependent Team USA Athletes’ Commission with mining tier assignments for governing bodies, pursua strong start. Any method of securing indepen- ant to Recommendation #5 above. The independent
dent funding must guarantee a revenue stream with Team USA Athletes’ Commission should also have awhich an empowered Team USA Athletes’ Commis- role in negotiating high-performance athletes’ eligision can hire professional staff with a legal duty to bility for health-insurance coverage, roles concerning
act in athletes’ best interests, including legal counsel Section Nine and Section Ten dispute processes, andwho can represent athletes in disputes.
other critical issues of concern for athletes across the136

Recommendations

movement. Congress may additionally wish to permit
the Team USA Athletes’ Commission to designate an
external representative to assist in these efforts, suchas a players’ association within a particular sport thatbrings unique experience and expertise to bear on athletes’ behalf. The professional staff of the Team USA
Athletes’ Commission should also be given authority
to conduct periodic audits of movement institutions’policies, processes, and agreements in order to keep
athletes informed of rules and practices as well as tocontribute to transparency and accountability.
Making the Team USA Athletes’ Commission fully
independent, however, should not in any way reduce
athletes’ organized representation within USOPC
and the governing bodies. Even with this change,
Congress should still require that USOPC and governing bodies maintain mandated seats for athlete
representatives chosen through the Team USA Athletes’ Commission and that athlete representatives on
those boards continue to be eligible to carry out board
responsibilities. This representation, in our view, continues to be essential both for the benefit of athletes
and for these organizations that benefit from their
participation in decision-making. Moreover, Congress should clarify and strengthen the authority of
the Team USA Athletes’ Commission to operate elections for the athlete-representative seats on USOPC’s
Board of Directors and on the boards of the governing
bodies. To do so, USOPC and the governing bodies
should be required to provide the Team USA Athletes’
Commission with lists of the names and contact information for all current high-performance athletes
so that election-related information can be forwarded
and ballots made available through whichever means
the Team USA Athletes’ Commission considers mosteffective.

taken to improve them, just as USOPC is required to
do in its own annual reporting.
Recommendation #7: Congress should strengthen
public oversight of the movement to ensure transparency, accountability, and due process at all levels.
KEY POINTS:•

Congress should establish a firm process of
public oversight, either in the form of a Senate-confirmed Inspector General for Sport, a
dedicated mission team within the GAO an Office of Special Counsel for Sport, or expandedauthority for the current HHS Inspector General.

• This new public-oversight mechanism would
ensure transparency and accountability by
USOPC, governing bodies, SafeSport, USADA,
and the Team USA Athletes’ Commission.
•

Semi-annual reports to Congress should be
required to assess whether executives at
USOPC, governing bodies, SafeSport, USADA,
and the Team USA Athletes’ Commission arecompensated at a justifiable level.

• The new public-oversight mechanism would
ensure public disclosures and accountability
relating to U.S. bids to host the Olympics andParalympics—and make all final bids to USOPC,
the IOC, and the IPC publicly available for the
benefit of future bid planners.

One of the key findings of this study has been a lackof transparency, accountability, and due process by
USOPC, governing bodies, and SafeSport. This is
The newly independent Team USA Athletes’ Com- detrimental both to the movement and to the milmission must reflect the athletes it serves. That’s why lions of Americans who participate in it. Congress
Congress should mandate that a minimum percentage took it upon itself in 1978 to create quasi-governof its athlete representatives come from winter and mental entities to oversee movement sports and tosummer sports and from Olympic and Paralympic look after the well-being of athletes. However, as
sports. To promote gender and racial diversity among has been pointed out, USOPC, as a private, quarepresentatives, the Team USA Athletes’ Commission si-governmental entity, does not have sufficient inshould be required to submit annual reports to Con- centives or resources to be its own public watchdog
gress that include an assessment of its diversity and over the system and the organizations falling underinclusion practices and what efforts are being under- its purview. The same can be said for SafeSport.

Recommendations

In the Commission’s view, the best way to ensure
public accountability for the movement and theentities that oversee it would be for Congress toestablish a new and robust public-oversight mechanism covering these quasi-governmental entities.
Until that happens, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement’s governing institutions will remain,in effect, an unregulated public-private monopoly.
During the course of our study, the Commission
heard several proposals for how to address this challenge. We also looked carefully at how Congress set
up public oversight for other quasi-governmental
institutions, such as Amtrak, the Corporation for
National and Community Service, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Tennessee Valley Authority, among others. The Commission has
identified four possible options that would be appropriate for public oversight of the U.S. Olympic
and Paralympic movement’s governing institutions,each of which Congress ought to consider before
selecting the one that fits best with lawmakers’
broader vision for reform.

137

sibilities for this Inspector General for Sport would
not cover the new Office of Sports and Fitness weare recommending be created within HHS. Such an
office would fall under the purview of that Department’s Inspector General.

The second option for Congress would be to direct
the GAO to create a special mission team for sports
oversight and provide it with a mandate to produce
regular audits and reports to the House and Senate
committees of jurisdiction. Because GAO forms
part of the legislative branch and answers only toCongress, this would keep the public oversight ofmovement institutions close to lawmakers andnot require the establishment of any new executive-branch positions. However, the Commission
has concerns about the effectiveness of oversight by
GAO, which typically acts in response to Congressional inquiries and not proactively. It also alreadyhas a substantial backlog of requests from Congressional offices and committees for investigations andreports. These concerns would need to be allayedin the form of a statutory directive for GAO to priThe first option, which is not without precedent,305 oritize oversight of the movement and ensure timewould be to create a multi-agency Inspector Gen- ly and regular reports.
eral for Sport. The individual in this Senate-confirmed position would be responsible for ensur- The third option would be the creation of an Ofing the budgetary and operational accountability, fice of Special Counsel for Sport. This would betransparency, and due-process compliance of en- modeled after the general Office of Special Countities authorized by Congress to participate in the sel, which serves as a resource for whistleblowers
governance and oversight of movement sports in across the federal government and protects the inour country. These include USOPC, SafeSport, tegrity of our merit-based civil service. An Office
USADA, and an independent Team USA Athletes’ of Special Counsel for Sport would operate simiCommission. As a multi-agency inspector general, larly to an Inspector General for Sport, as outlined
this individual would support the leaders of each above. Unlike inspectors general, though, who areof these entities in ensuring transparency, account- usually attached to organizational leaders within
ability, and due process in carrying out their orga- an agency, this new independent executive-branchnization’s missions. Moreover, this new Inspector office would operate as an external federal watchGeneral for Sport would be answerable to Con- dog over USOPC, the governing bodies, SafeSport,
gress and would serve as a secure point of contact USADA, and the Team USA Athletes’ Commission.
for board members, executives, and staff wishingto raise alarms about possible mismanagement or The final option would be for Congress to grant thepolicy violations. To be clear, the scope of respon- existing Inspector General for HHS additional au305 Congress has created multi-agency inspectors general in several cases, with notable examples being: 1) the Inspector General of
the Intelligence Community, which serves multiple intelligence agencies; 2) the Inspector General of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, which also covers the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; 3) the Inspector General for U.S. Aid for International Development, which also has jurisdiction over the Overseas Private Development Corporation; and 4) the Inspector General for the U.S. Postal
Service, which also oversees the Postal Regulatory Commission. Cf.: Ben Wilhelm, “Statutory Inspectors General in the Federal Government:
A Primer,” Congressional Research Service, November 13, 2023.

138

Recommendations

thority to cover the quasi-governmental agencies
relating to sports. Such an extension in the Inspector General’s mandate would necessitate additional
resources appropriated by Congress in order to ensure that oversight of USOPC, the governing bodies, SafeSport, USADA, and the Team USA Athletes’ Commission does not fall by the wayside in
an office responsible for the entirety of a large cab-In the Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur Athletes Act of 2020, Congress gave itself thedirect authority to decertify any governing body that
had run afoul of its responsibilities. The mechanism
for how Congress would identify such malfeasance,
however, was never specified. This ambiguity, in theCommission’s view, makes it less likely that Congress would ever choose to exercise such authority. A
dedicated public-oversight entity
would be able to report to ConWith a strong public-oversight function in place, no
gress with recommendations as
longer would these quasi-governmental organizations
to whether and when this power
have any ability or excuse to hide information fromought to be exercised, eliminatCongress and the American people.
ing that ambiguity.

inet-level department. The advantage of this option
is that it would not require the creation of a newinspector general or an additional confirmable appointee. There is precedent for this type of arrangement; in 2014, Congress granted Inspector Generalof the Department of Transportation responsibility
for oversight over the Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority, which, though authorized by
Congress, is not a federal entity.306
Regardless of the option Congress chooses, it must
create a strong oversight and reporting function,
answerable to lawmakers and the public they serve,
which is currently absent from the U.S. Olympic andParalympic movement. Among the duties of thisnew public-oversight mechanism, alongside audits,
inspections, and investigations, must be the issuing of semi-annual reports to Congress on whether
quasi-governmental movement-sports institutions
are fulfilling their statutorily mandated responsibilities and ensuring that whistleblowers for malfeasance have a safe and trusted avenue to come forward. Congress should also specifically authorize thatsuch semi-annual reporting include assessments as
to whether athletes are receiving sufficient financial
support compared to the level of compensation afforded to executive-level staff at these organizations.
The Commission is not recommending statutory caps
on salaries or bonuses, but we believe it is essential
for the public to understand how these executives arecompensated in comparison to the financial resources
made available to the athletes and coaches they serve.
306

Pub. L. 113-76.

Moreover, such a public-oversight entity should betasked with ensuring transparency, accountability,and due process for U.S. bids to host Olympic andParalympic Games. That means having full accessto any and all documents relating to bids by U.S.
host-city candidates as well as documents provided
to the IOC and the IPC as part of any final-selection process when a U.S. bid is considered. To aid
in this process, Congress should require that U.S.
bids meet all IOC and IPC standards and release all
financial ledgers for review by the public-oversightentity to ensure no impropriety in the disbursement of Olympic- or Paralympic-related funding.
Moreover, all final bid documentation submitted
either to USOPC, to the IOC, or to the IPC should
be made publicly available by the public-oversightentity after a certain amount of time has passed, inorder for future bid planners to have access to themand see what previous bid cities proposed even if
they were not selected. No documents concerning
ongoing bids, of course, should be made public, inorder to protect confidential information that, if
shared, could advantage a foreign competitor’s bid
or one U.S. bid against another.
This Commission encountered great difficulty soliciting voluntary disclosure of key documents from
USOPC, governing bodies, and SafeSport. With astrong public-oversight function in place, no longer would these quasi-governmental organizations
have any ability or excuse to hide information from
Congress and the American people. The creation of

Recommendations

this public-oversight function is essential to ensure •that these entities, charged by Congress with upholding certain public values, remain accountable
to the public they serve.
Recommendation #8: Access and equality for
Paralympians and those participating in para
sports at all levels must be improved.
KEY POINTS:•

Congress should require that funds raised
from Paralympic trademarks be earmarked by
USOPC to support athletes in para sports.

•

USOPC should fund Olympic and Paralympic
athletes equitably and use its influence overlicensing to negotiate equitable television andstreaming coverage for future Paralympic
Games.

•USOPC should use its position in the global
sporting movement to push for equality in prize
awards for those with and without disabilities
who medal at world-championship-level competitions.

•

Movement stakeholders should build on the
momentum of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic
and Paralympic Games by launching national
nonprofit organizations to increase accessto movement sports among under-served
groups and to create opportunities for young
people to participate in para sports in theircommunities.

•

Congress should direct the newly created
HHS Office of Sports and Fitness to establish dedicated competitive-grant programs tohelp state and local governments make public-school gymnasium and fitness facilities fully accessible.

• The NCAA is encouraged to work with its member institutions to add and expand para sports
programs as well as to treat them as varsity-level programs at the highest levels of competition.

139

Congress should further study the issue of
integrating deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes
and deaf sports into the U.S. Olympic andParalympic movement, while USOPC should
work with the U.S.A. Deaf Sports Federation toresolve impediments to the latter making fulluse of Deaflympic trademarks and obtaining
sponsorships.

The Commission has been encouraged by the many
positive steps taken in recent years toward the fullequality of Paralympics within the movement; weare not there yet, however. Changing USOPC’s
name to reflect the equality of Paralympics alongside Olympics was a powerful statement of purpose and intention, as was establishing parity in
Operation Gold payments. In reality, however,the Paralympics are not treated equally. For mostAmerican fans and spectators, they remain an afterthought—even though their competitions andachievements are no less engaging and can be evenmore inspiring than the Olympics.
First, in order to promote equality at the high-performance level and create the best environment for
Paralympic champions who can inspire all Americans, Congress should require that, at a minimum,
funds raised directly from the use of Paralympic
trademarks must be earmarked by USOPC to benefit Paralympic programs. Moreover, USOPC should
provide financial support to Olympic and Paralympic athletes equitably. If American high-performance athletes with disabilities are not receiving
the full and equitable support they deserve, the U.S.
Olympic and Paralympic movement as a whole will
not succeed.
In order to help more Americans learn about para
sports and the opportunities available for those withdisabilities at all ages to participate in the movement, it is essential to broaden the visibility of ourParalympic champions. Our talent pipeline doesn’t
begin when a child first tries a sport; it starts whenthat child first watches others playing it and dreams
of doing the same. If American children cannot observe others like them pushing the limits, demonstrating sportsmanship, and hoisting medals atop a
podium, those dreams may never materialize. That’s

140

Recommendations

why the Commission strongly urges USOPC, whenthe IOC’s current agreement with NBC Sports
comes up for renewal or renegotiation, to use allits influence to force the IOC to use its monopoly
over Olympics-relating licensing to benefit the U.S.—
and global—coverage and broadcast promotion of
the 2034 and all future Paralympic Games and of
Paralympic athletes with the same vigor and support
as their Olympic counterparts. Requirements for equitable coverage of the Paralympics ought to be partof future deals licensing Olympic broadcasts in orderto ensure maximum public interest in both. Domestic coverage of the London 2012 Paralympic Gamesin the United Kingdom, which included more than
150 hours on one of the nation’s most-watched television stations and featured individuals with disabilities as half of the on-screen presenters, should
serve as an example to emulate. As a result, 28 million people in the United Kingdom watched those
Paralympic Games.307 The Commission is encouraged by NBC Sports’s announcement of expanded
coverage for the 2024 Paralympic summer gamesin Paris, and we hope it will voluntarily increase its
live- and primetime-television Paralympic coveragefor those and other Paralympic games occurring before 2034, which would set a positive example of corporate responsibility and civic leadership. Doing sowould also unlock a major commercial opportunity
that, until this point, has been largely untapped.

deprives Paralympic sports of critical funding fromthe sale of items using their trademarks. USOPC
should take immediate steps to rectify this imbalance by committing to equalize the number of
unique items supporting Olympic and Paralympic
sports offered for sale, even as it continues to stock
inventory based on demand. We believe, if this occurs, USOPC will see demand for Paralympic merchandise grow.
In addition, USOPC should use its influence within
the global sports movement to push for equal prize
awards for athletes and teams who win medals andchampionships, regardless of whether they havedisabilities or not, whether they are competing in
adapted sports or not. While Operation Gold payments have now been equalized for Olympic andParalympic champions within the American system, these athletes still face inequality at the international level. Prize purses for world-championshipcompetitions run by international governing bodies remain unequal in many cases, leaving American athletes with disabilities at a disadvantage. The
Commission hopes USOPC will work to make theUnited States a leader in the global movement forequality for athletes with disabilities.

The Commission also encourages USOPC to hire a
new Chief Compliance Officer for Accessibility. It
is clear that not enough athletes in para sports feel
It is essential that our nation takes full advantage of like USOPC is listening to them when it comes tohosting the summer 2028 Olympic and Paralympic accessibility issues, and there is a need for a dediGames—and, hopefully, the winter 2034 games. We cated member of USOPC’s leadership team to bemust use them as an opportunity to set high goals focused on making movement sports more accesand harness the energy for committing the resourc- sible and promoting equity for Paralympics withes necessary for success. We must help a new gen- in the system. This is a position that ought to beeration dream—and then access the tools to turn established quickly, and, if USOPC does not do so,
dreaming into participating.
Congress should consider requiring it.

One easy step USOPC can take right away is to commit to equality in its approach to selling Paralympic-branded items through its official Team USA
Shop online. The Commission found a disturbing
disparity between the number of unique Olympic-branded vs. Paralympic-branded items for sale.
This both sends a message to the public about whichsports and athletes are most valued by USOPC and307

Another important step would follow the brilliant
effort undertaken by stakeholders within the disability community and U.S. Paralympics following
the 1996 Atlanta Games. After those games’ conclusion, they formed the American Association of
Adapted Sports Programs (AAASP), a nonprofit
organization that has taken on a national mission
to benefit para sports and athletes with disabilities.

“Report reveals Channel 4 revolutionising disability broadcast landscape,” International Paralympic Committee, September 11, 2020.

Recommendations

141

Movement stakeholders should commit to recreating that effort after the 2028 Los Angeles Paralympic Games, in partnership with AAASP and otherorganizations, to build a national nonprofit focusedon supporting more equitable access to para sports
in under-served communities.

their highest levels of competition, treat them all asvarsity-level programs—not recreational. With as
many as three quarters of America’s high-performance athletes participating in NCAA programs
during their athletic careers, it is essential that collegiate and movement sports are aligned in treating
athletes with disabilities equitably and that colleges
Congress should also direct the newly created HHS and universities provide them with robust training
Office of Sports and Fitness (See Recommenda- and competition programs. They deserve opportion #1) to establish a dedicated competitive-grant tunities to train, compete, and grow as athletes as
program to help primary and secondary schools they pursue their Paralympic dreams.
upgrade gymnasium and fitness facilities to makethem Rehabilitation Act and ADA compliant308 During the course of our study, the Commission
and fully accessible to students with physical dis- heard from many in the deaf and hard-of-hearing
abilities, including those who are deaf and hard-of- community about the unique challenges they facehearing. Already, public-school districts receiving accessing movement sports, as well as the history
federal support are required to provide accessible of the Deaflympics and its relationship to the U.S.
facilities to students under the 1973 Rehabilitation Olympic and Paralympic movement. Since theAct, the 1990 Individuals with Disabilities Educa- enactment of the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amation Act, and the 1990 ADA. However, many are teur Sports Act, deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes
still not in compliance because of lack of sufficient have been left outside the current system, at varfunding. Grants through the OSF could be used to ious times seeking inclusion or celebrating their
help close the gap and make public-school facili- unique standing. We believe the issue of integratties fully accessible. The Commission also strongly ing deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes into the U.S.
recommends that states create new funding op- Olympic and Paralympic movement merits further
portunities for school districts to purchase adap- study by Congress, with a goal of ensuring that all
tive equipment and to train or hire staff who can athletes who want to participate in the movement
provide instruction and coaching in para sports as can always do so with the accessibility accommodawell as to provide specialized sports programs and tions they need—and to clarify current ambiguities
coaching for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. around communication channels between SafeSCongress should direct the OSF as well to develop port and the USADSF when athletes in the Deafand publish information about opportunities for lympic movement report abuse or misconduct. In
people with disabilities to participate in sports, and the meantime, the Commission recommends thatit should encourage the dissemination of these ma- USOPC and USADSF work together, in coordinaterials in hospitals, rehabilitation centers, and other tion with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, toplaces where they will reach those who may benefit. ensure that USADSF can make use in the United
In doing so, OSF should coordinate with the U.S. States of trademarked words and phrases that the
Department of Veterans Affairs to amplify the im- IOC has granted to Deaflympics internationalpact of programs serving veterans with disabilities. ly and that USADSF can enter into sponsorships
without hindrance from USOPC.
Recognizing the central role that collegiate sports
play in the talent pipeline for U.S. representationin the Olympics and Paralympics, the Commission
encourages the NCAA to work with its member institutions to increase funding for para sports and, at
308 While ADA compliance should be a required minimum, the Commission encourages states to aim higher and take steps to promote
the broader adoption of universal design principles, in which environments are built to be usable by all without the need for specialized adaption.

142

Recommendations

Recommendation #9: Congress, state governments,
USOPC, and other stakeholders should take concrete
steps to improve equitable access to movement
sports.
KEY POINTS:•

Congress should make certain costs associated with youth-sports access and participation tax deductible for families with children in
primary and secondary schools.

•

States should mandate daily recess periods
for elementary and middle schools and requirephysical-education classes at least twice per
week.

•

Stakeholders should build on the momentumof the 2028 Los Angeles games to launch anational nonprofit modeled after LA84 thatcan spread the benefit of hosting the games
far and wide through expanded opportunities
for access to movement-sports programsfor those from under-represented and under-served minority and rural communities aswell as among women and girls.

• The newly created HHS Office of Sports andFitness should establish dedicated competitive-grant programs to upgrade, repair, andbuild new public sports facilities and launch
new public leagues and clinics in under-served
communities. Grantees, to be eligible for funding, would be required to adopt leading practices in youth-development programming, safety,
and coaching education.
•

Congress and states should work to remove
liability barriers that too often stand in the wayof school districts allowing community accessto school-based sports and fitness infrastructure.

One of the most defining aspects of the global
sports movement encompassing the Olympics andParalympics is its universal nature. Every person has
a place within it. Every individual, no matter one’s
309“Olympic Charter,” International Olympic Committee.

age, race, sex, physical ability, culture, or beliefs, canparticipate in sports and enjoy its positive health andsocial benefits. Indeed, the IOC’s Olympic Charterdeclares that:
The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing
sport, without discrimination of any kind andin the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual
understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.309
Consequently, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
movement must continue to embrace the removal of
barriers for all who wish to participate in sports in
our country. Together, we must ensure that sports
can remain a great equalizer, an environment inwhich individuals of talent and determination, no
matter their origin, can rise to the best of their ability
and strive to win glory for our country on their own
or through admirable teamwork. In doing so, theircommunities benefit, and so does our entire nation.
This ethos remains one of the reasons why Congress,
on behalf of the American public, has a responsibility to ensure the movement’s success.
To achieve this goal, Congress, state governments,
USOPC, governing bodies, and all stakeholders musttake additional steps to promote and ensure more
equitable access, diversity in participation, and accessibility for those wishing to engage in movement
sports at every level. As noted earlier, the Commission found stubborn gaps in access for womenand girls, for racial and ethnic minorities, for thosein underserved rural and inner-city communities,
and for Americans with disabilities. We have also
heard about persistent challenges faced by those in
the LGBTQ community when accessing movement
sports. These gaps and challenges must be addressed
through proactive, concerted measures.
All too often, as this Commission has found, themost enduring barriers to equitable participation
are financial. Most American families cannot afford
to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars a
year for each child to join an organized individual
sports program or play on a team. Indeed, in com-

Recommendations

munities lacking sufficient resources to invest in
public facilities like maintained parks or recreational
centers, many Americans do not have access to basic sports and fitness infrastructure at all where theylive. Moreover, where USOPC and governing bodies
have left a vacuum in the youth and grassroots environment, private nonprofit and for-profit entities
have filled that vacuum with sports programs thatare almost exclusively pay-to-play. As a result of highprogram fees, equipment requirements, and travel
costs, not as many young people are participating insports as there could be. Even where less expensive
public programs exist, offered through municipal
governments or school districts, families still end up
facing substantial costs in order for children to access organized movement sports or even just a safe
place to play.

143

States too have an important role to play in tackling
this challenge. Perhaps most important are the actions states can take to promote healthier children
and a greater awareness of the benefits of physicaleducation and play from an early age. To that end,
every state should enact legislation mandating a recess period each school day and physical education
classes at least twice per week in every public elementary and middle school. It must be made clear,
however, that physical education programs in publicschools must be supported through specific funding
streams so that they do not compete with resources
for other vital educational programs, such as STEM,
the arts, or language learning.

States should also seek to take full advantage of grants
made available through the newly created HHS Office of Sports and Fitness (See Recommendation #1)
Congress should address this problem by making to upgrade, repair, and construct new public sports
certain costs associated with youth-sports participa- facilities. Other grants through OSF should help
tion tax-deductible, including program fees, the cost fund the launching of new and expanded youth- andof necessary equipment, and funds spent on travel recreational-sports leagues and clinics that are more
for competitions. Such a deduction should be made affordable or even free of charge in under-served
available to all parents and guardians of primary- and communities. All grantees through OSF should besecondary-school students. Permitting Americans required to adhere to leading practices, such as posto use pre-tax funds set aside through Health Savings itive youth-development programming, high stanAccounts and Flexible Spending Accounts for fitness dards of safety, and excellence in coaching education.
and sports-related costs, such as recreational-league Once the federal OSF is established and Congresssignup fees or a dependent child’s sports equipment, appropriates funding to enable its critical work, thatwould also be a positive step forward. The Commis- new office ought to become a national hub for efforts
aimed at closing persistent gaps inaccess and opportunity.
...We must ensure that sports can remain a great

equalizer, an environment in which individuals of talentand determination, no matter their origin, can rise to
the best of their ability and strive to win glory for ourcountry on their own or through admirable teamwork.

Public schools also provide a major untapped opportunity for promoting sports and fitness access intheir communities. Already, thousands of public schools across thesion is aware of bipartisan legislation introduced in nation host well-maintained facilities, such as runthe 118th Congress310 to that effect and encourages ning tracks, ball fields, and gymnasiums. However,its inclusion as part of broader reform efforts. While many school districts restrict public access to thesethis would not end our current pay-to-play system of facilities because of liability concerns, locking themyouth sports, it would certainly help many families behind fences or shuttering them during non-schoolby easing the financial burden of participation—and, hours. Congress and states should take steps to proconsequently, reduce the frequency of families hav- tect school districts against liability when making
ing to make the difficult decision not to enroll their their sports and fitness facilities available for use by
children in youth sports because of high costs.
community groups and local sports leagues so that310

H.R. 1582.

144

Recommendations

Americans of all ages can enjoy the benefits of having
these facilities located right in their neighborhoods.
Building on the momentum from the 2028 Los Angeles games, stakeholders should also launch a national nonprofit modeled on the highly successful LA84 •organization. Such a nonprofit’s mission should bereach far beyond Southern California to expand opportunities in movement-sports programs. In particular, it should focus its efforts on opening new
avenues to sports for those from under-represented
and under-served minority communities, from rural
areas, and among women and girls.
•
Recommendation #10: USOPC should adopt a newmodel for organizing U.S. bids to host the Olympic
and Paralympic Games.
KEY POINTS:•

USOPC should embrace a new model for
U.S. bids to host the Olympic and Paralympic
Games focused on coordination, not competition.

•

Congress may wish to consider making thefederal government a partner with future U.S.
hosts of the games, providing a financial backstop and guaranteeing all U.S. bids.

•

Future bids under this model should consider
spreading events—including the opening andclosing ceremonies—across cities and regions
in order to broaden their positive impact andlessen the financial burden on any one particular city.

•

Host cities should prioritize temporary venues
over permanent ones where economical, andathlete-village housing should be built in separate clusters in order to locate new affordable, medium-density housing where it is mostneeded after the games.

•

USOPC, in partnership with the IOC and the
IPC, should establish a captive insurance
program to provide broader coverage to U.S.
hosts of the games at a more affordable costs,

with eventual surpluses used to alleviate future insurance costs and help defray otherhosting-related expenses, such as venue construction.
Host cities should place a greater emphasison building ADA-compliant venues, housing,and transportation infrastructure to accountfor the thousands of athletes and spectatorswith disabilities who will be using them during
both the Olympic and the Paralympic Games.
Future bids should be creative with scheduling
the Olympics and Paralympics, exploring what
benefits may come from holding the two simultaneously.

Hosting the Olympics, Paralympics, and other majorinternational sporting competitions has the power
to shine a spotlight on an American city or regionand on our nation as a whole. On the positive side,hosting can generate billions of dollars in new revenues, spur long-delayed public and private investments in infrastructure and development, and inspire increased participation in youth and grassroots
sports—particularly in underserved communities.
Hosting is not without risks, however, with the potential for budget overruns, fraud and theft, as wellmismanagement that can damage a city or region’s
reputation or financial footing, among others. The
bid process itself has also been plagued at times withlack of transparency, byzantine rules set by the IOC,
the IPC, or a national committee, or even illegality.
In the summers of 1984 and 1996 and in the winters of 1980 and 2002, the United States successfully demonstrated how to host the modern Olympic
and Paralympic Games. In 2028—and, hopefully, in2034—we will have another opportunity to do so.
Already, Los Angeles 2028 is preparing to bring thesummer games back and shine their spotlight on
the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement. Winning the right to host the 2034 winter games would
likewise highlight American winter Olympians’ andParalympians’ dedication to their sports and help
inspire the growth and development of those sports
more widely in our communities. It is essential that
we take full advantage of those games, the impact

Recommendationsof which ought to echo far beyond their host cities
and generate positive changes in movement sports
across our country.

145

city like Bozeman that would never likely bid for orhost the Olympic and Paralympic Games on its own.
Geography need not be a limiting factor either in ourage of frequent airline connectivity and high-speed
One of those changes is a rethinking of how Amer- internet communications. Nothing should preclude
ican cities ought to bid for and host these games USOPC from encouraging and supporting an Olymin the future. To start, USOPC should treat the pic and Paralympic bid by Chicago that features
domestic bid process not as a competition but as venues and events as far afield as places like Seattle,
a conversation. It ought to work with interested Little Rock, or Baltimore. We have seen this succities and regions to assemble the best U.S. bid for cessful model applied by FIFA for its soccer world
each IOC and IPC bid process. If two nearby cities cup games, where entire nations serve as the hosts
were ever both interested in bidding for the games, (or even jointly with other nations, as with the 2023
USOPC should work with them to develop a joint Australia and New Zealand games) and hold matchproposal. Likewise, if a mid-sized city from a region es across different cities. Indeed, in recent months
that has never before hosted the games wishes to Switzerland announced its own intention to put forbid and puts forward a strong proposal against a ward the first-ever national bid for the Olympic andlarger, more-traditional competitor, USOPC should Paralympic winter games sometime in the 2030s.
work to bring the two together for a joint bid. Insuch a way, USOPC should lead a dialogue among Along these lines, potential hosts should considinterested cities and regions to make sure America er organizing opening and closing ceremonies thatis submitting the best possible bid each time. More- span cities in order to bring more Americans into
over, while other nations’ federal or central govern- the games and showcase a wider narrative about thements play a supportive role in assisting their bid diversity of culture and sports in our country. The
cities secure financing, insurance, and other re- Commission has been impressed with plans ansources, ours does not. Congress may wish to con- nounced by the Paris 2024 organizing committee tosider making the federal government a partner to hold an opening ceremony on the Seine River, with
USOPC and potential U.S. hosts in this process as athletes from national delegations parading on boats
other nations have successfully modeled, including through the center of the city. Surely, our cities can
by serving as a backstop and financial guarantor of present bids with innovative approaches like that
U.S. bids.
one, which break new ground in expanding the number of people who can participate as spectators andThis increased coordination is not enough, though. which bring the world to America in new and excitUSOPC should adopt a new model for American ing ways. Longstanding practices that have seemedbids. Under such a model, the old dynamic of ‘one set in stone can and must be reimagined.
city, one bid’ would make way for a more flexible
approach that recognizes the benefits of spreading When it comes to the planning for facilities andthe games across regions or even the whole country. infrastructure, this new model ought to include a
While one city (or pair of cities, such as Milan and preference for temporary venues where possible
Cortina d’Ampezzo in 2026) might still be official- and economical. All too often, new permanently the named host, it would be beneficial to locate venues are constructed for Olympic and Paralymsome of the venues for competition in other Ameri- pic host cities that, soon after, are abandoned or fall
can cities in order both to lessen the financial burden into disrepair, with few resources available for theiron one metropolitan area alone and to broaden the upkeep. Where permanent venues are planned,
positive financial impacts of hosting. For example, they should all be justified based on after-games
if Salt Lake City is selected to host the 2034 winter need or envisioned for a specific secondary purgames, its plan might include clusters of venues lo- pose. Indeed, permanent venues should only becated in places like Denver, Bozeman or Reno-Tahoe. constructed if they are required even without hostAll three areas would benefit, particularly a smaller ing the games. Otherwise, planners should look for146

Recommendations

already-existing venues farther away or consider
temporary ones. Moreover, host cities should planfor Olympic and Paralympic villages to be built inclusters specifically where new medium-density—and affordable—housing is lacking. As long as hostcities engage in smart planning around public transit infrastructure, all athletes need not be housed
together in one single place.
Another strategy in this new model would be for
USOPC to offer, in partnership with the IOC andthe IPC, a captive insurance program that provides
better and more affordable coverage to U.S. hosts if
their bids are successful. As was observed in 2020
when the Tokyo Games were postponed due tothe COVID-19 pandemic, insurance plays a critical role in modern Olympic and Paralympic hosting. A captive insurance program under USOPC
that could provide coverage bundled with its otherhosting-related services and resources would bringinsurance costs down for host cities. Additionally,
surpluses from this type of risk-management program could then be used by USOPC to help future
U.S. hosts offset the cost of new venue construction
and upgrades.
The Commission also strongly urges USOPC torequire that U.S. bids make a greater effort to ensure that all games are fully accessible to athletes,
coaches, judges, referees, foreign officials, and fanswith disabilities. We have heard from Paralympians
who have had to endure stressful delays in getting
to and from their competition events because hostcities built infrastructure for the Olympic Games
that did not take into account their use shortly
thereafter by thousands of people with disabilities. Spectators with disabilities at the Olympic andParalympic Games also deserve better. Host cities
should build infrastructure for both Olympic andParalympic Games that can meet the demand of
the Paralympics, including more busses and trainsthat are compliant with the ADA and athlete-village housing where most or all of the units are
ADA compliant from the very start. Compliancewith the ADA should be a minimum standard; theCommission recommends the implementation ofuniversal-design principles for construction of venues and housing that can be used by all without theneed for specialized adaptation. This will also help
ensure that converted housing is accessible for all
after the games end.
Having heard a number of new proposals during
the course of our study, the Commission also encourages U.S. bids to embrace creativity and innovation when it comes to scheduling. There is no
reason why the Olympics and Paralympics need totake place two weeks apart. Holding them simultaneously would help promote greater attention andinterest in Paralympic athletes and sports among awider viewership. If the live broadcast of an Olympic basketball game were followed immediately by
the live broadcast of a Paralympic wheelchair-basketball game, certainly many fans who had neverbeen exposed to the latter would continue watching. Another concept worth exploring is to workwith the IOC and the IPC to allow two different
American cities from the same region to host the
Olympics and Paralympics concurrently. It is timeto think differently—and strategically—about thekind of Olympics and Paralympics that Americans
want to host and encourage for the future.
Recommendation #11: Congress, USOPC, governing bodies, and other stakeholders should partner
to improve coaching at all levels.
KEY POINTS:•

Policymakers and movement stakeholders
should begin a national dialogue about how to
improve coaching at all levels.

• The American Development Model should
be adopted universally as the foundation forcoaching in our country.
•

States should encourage public colleges anduniversities to offer degree or certificate programs in coaching and coaching-related fields
by drawing on course offerings that alreadyexist in sports science, sports psychology, nutrition, child development, education, and otherfields.

•Congress should make course-enrollment

Recommendations

fees for coaching education tax deductible
and consider launching a national scholarshipprogram offering grants or low-interest loans
to help students afford coaching education.
•

Congress should extend a tax deduction to
help volunteer youth-sport coaches in ourcommunities offset certain out-of-pockets
costs spent on equipment, fees, and othercoaching-related expenses.

•

USOPC, governing bodies, and movement
stakeholders should partner to create newopportunities for training and education forvolunteer coaches as well as for parents andguardians of athletes so all can better understand the American Development Model aswell as how a healthy athlete-coach-parent/
guardian relationship should work when building life-long sports and fitness skills.

147

and Paralympic movement and want to play a constructive role in the lives of the athletes they serve.
That’s why the Commission believes it is essential not
to ignore the place of coaching within the movement
and in the future of sports in our country.
For too long, coaching has been left out of many critical discussions about how to strengthen the movement and build a stronger future for the system of
movement sports in America. That must change. It
is time for our Congress, USOPC, governing bodies,and stakeholders throughout the movement to begin a national dialogue about how to improve coaching at every level and how to harness and amplify the
many positive benefits that good coaching brings toathletes, sports, and entire communities.

One of the challenges at present is a lack of clear
data about coaches and their experience within the
movement. This information will be crucial as policymakers and movement stakeholders contemplate
future steps to improve coaching and expand opWhile it is essential that athletes remain at its center, portunities for coaches to develop their skills—and,the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement cannot for professional coaches, advance in their careers.
succeed without the hard work, dedication, and ex- To that end, Congress should direct the new fedpertise of its coaches. Whether professional coaches eral OSF to study and track national coaching data,
and trainers helping to guide our champions to the including rates of licensing, retention, wages andmedal podium or the parent or guardian volunteers in local youth sports, these individu...A good coach can make the difference
als form a critical link between athletes’ talent
between a child who embraces a lifetime loveand success. Particularly at the youth level, aof sports and fitness and one who drops out
good coach can make the difference between
because of burnout or lack of engagement.
a child who embraces a lifetime love of sports
and fitness and one who drops out because ofburnout or lack of engagement. In the worst scenarios, other compensation, diversity, and volunteer or
we have observed individuals who never should have professional status, among other criteria. Additionbeen allowed to coach commit horrific abuses; in the ally, OSF should conduct surveys to gauge coaches’
best, we have encountered coaches who keep minor attitudes, approaches, and training needs and toathletes safe when their parents or guardians aren’t identify trends within the field.
around and provide age-appropriate and encouraging guidance that instills whole-of-life skills. One of Congress should also recognize the important role
our focus-group participants from the private-sector OSF could play in improving coaching in our counyouth-sports industry observed the connection be- try. That office could make grants to governing bodtween a stronger approach to coaching and athlete ies as well as youth- and grassroots-sports organisafety: “If we can make our coaches more effective by zations contingent on the adoption of certain basic
teaching them how to be better coaches, how to do their coaching standards and training, including meetingjobs better, then it would likely reduce this bad behav- benchmarks for recruiting and hiring women, thoseior that’s happening.” For the most part, we found, with disabilities, and those from under-representcoaches believe strongly in the ethos of the Olympic ed groups for coach and trainer positions. Certain

148

Recommendations

grants from OSF might also be earmarked to support research into coaching practice, education, andpolicy through accredited institutions of higher education and research-conducting nonprofit organizations. Moreover, OSF could be tasked with designating a formal, nationally recognized definitionof sports coaching, including exact sub-sectors towhich the definition applies (competitive sports, recreational sports, fitness, etc.) as well as a descriptionof the characteristics of a coach that differentiatescoaching from related occupations.
One of the bright spots within the movement in recent
years has been the creation and growth of USOPC’s
American Development Model for age-appropriatecoaching. The Commission believes this model ought
to be the foundation of American coaching and adopted by OSF, states, governing bodies, school districts, and stakeholders across the U.S. Olympic andParalympic movement. This model is particularly
effective in helping participants understand the importance of free play at the youngest ages, multi-sport
sampling, and the development of fundamental sports
and fitness skills that can be applied across sports. We
know from abundant research that athletes who learn
and play multiple sports not only have a lower risk of
injuries but have a better chance of developing theskills that build champions in their eventual sports ofchoice. One woman who participated in a Commission focus group shared the following:
Growing up in gymnastics… it didn’t feel like aphysically safe environment. The sport itself is
physically very challenging, but there was a lot of
forcing gymnasts to do skills they weren’t readyfor or not having the right equipment. Typically
you have a spring floor, but our gym had a foam
block floor, which was really, really hard. So, we
had a lot of injuries, and it was really hard tolearn skills. But our coaches wanted it because
they thought it made us tougher. I don’t thinkthat their intentions were poor, but I think that
their education was severely lacking in what wasappropriate and healthy for kids to be doing.
Better-supported and better-educated coaches
will deliver benefits both for youth and grassroots
sports and for the high-performance athletes whocompete to bring Olympic, Paralympic, Pan-American, Parapan-American, and world-championshipmedals home to our country.
In any national dialogue about the future of coaching, it is vital to recognize that wider adoption of
the American Development Model alone is insufficient. We also need trained, skilled, and dedicatedcoaches and trainers to apply it. That’s why improving coaching education must have a central role inthis discussion. For professional coaches we needa more formalized system of coaching educationin this country, which at present is sorely lacking
in clearly defined pathways from the classroom tocareers. States should consider directing public
colleges and universities—including community
colleges—to develop coaching degrees and programs by drawing on existing courses in relevant
fields, such as sports medicine, sports psychology, nutrition, child development, and education.
Many of these institutions already have the building blocks, and they ought to use them to constructdegree- or certificate-track programs for thosepursuing sports coaching as a vocation. Movement
stakeholders should also explore ways to support
the development of tools and partnerships thatstreamline coaching education, such as institutional collaborations with the NCAA and others, as wellas to increase accreditation of coaching-education
programs through the National Committee for Accreditation of Coaching Education. Next, Congressshould consider ways to help Americans afford thiseducation, including by making course-enrollment
fees tax deductible for those pursuing coachingeducation and licensing or by creating a national
scholarship program to provide grants and low-interest loans to offset the cost of tuition and othereducation-related costs for those from under-represented groups.
To help the volunteer youth-sports coaches in ourcommunities, many of whom end up spending
funds out of their own pockets to furnish equipment and cover participation costs for their athletes, the Commission recommends that Congressconsider extending a tax deduction for those costs
up to a certain amount. Additionally, OSF, USOPC,
governing bodies, and other movement stakehold-Recommendations

ers should identify new opportunities for affordable
courses and training programs to help volunteer
coaches learn key skills, understand the American
Development Model, and recognize how listening
better to athletes can improve safety and reduce injuries. Athletes and parents or guardians in youth
sports ought to have greater access to education
about what a healthy athlete-coach-parent/guardian relationship can and should look like in orderto help cultivate a better understanding about howcoaching can promote life-long sports participation rather than a focus on short-term competition,
which all too often leads to injuries and burnout.
We must do a better job empowering coaches andequipping them with the skills and tools required
for success.

149

additional funding. Many stakeholders within andoutside of the movement shared a number of novel
ideas on how Congress and states might raise newfunds to support the movement and its mission,both with regard to youth and grassroots athletes
and sports and to the high-performance athletes
who struggle to afford the training required to compete for our country abroad.

The Commission strongly recommends publicfunding to support the development of youth andgrassroots sports through Congressional appropriations to establish a new HHS Office of Sports andFitness (see Recommendation #1). We have also
urged direct Congressional support to ensure theindependence of SafeSport—with its previous $20
million annual grants from USOPC instead madeRecommendation #12: Congress and state legisla- available to support governing bodies’ investments
tures should think creatively about new and supple- in high-performance athletes. It is also our hopementary funding sources to support athletes through- that state and local governments will also adequateout the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement.
ly fund youth and grassroots sports that serve an
immense public good in our communities. However, we acknowledge that public resources are limitKEY POINTS:
ed, which is why we recommend that Congress andthe states explore new and creative revenue streams• Congress should identify creative newsources of revenue to support safety in,that can benefit youth and grassroots sports as wellas the safety and well-being of high-performanceaccess to, and participation in the U.S. Olympic
athletes.
and Paralympic movement.
•

Congress may wish to consider a federal
excise tax on income from legal sports betting.

Congress has granted USOPC lucrative trademarks, and much of its revenues from those trademarks should be used to provide stipends, health• Congress should consider directing theinsurance, and other benefits for our high-perforInternal Revenue Service (IRS) to add amanceathletes as they train and compete. We unvoluntary-donation checkbox to individual
derstand now, though, that these revenues are nottax-filing forms, with revenues earmarked toenough on their own. Even if the funding USOPC
benefit youth and grassroots programs orcurrently provides to SafeSport were redirected toathletes’ safety and well-being.
ward athlete support, the Commission believes ad• Congress and state legislatures may wantditional funds will still be required to ensure thatto explore the creation of lotteries or other
our high-performance athletes can contribute to
fundraising tools.
an important national effort without risking serious financial insecurity. The availability of sponsorDuring the course of our study, the Commission ship agreements through initiatives like USOPC’s
heard again and again that the biggest obstacle to Athlete Marketing Program, as we have also seen, isachieving so many of the goals of the U.S. Olympic no guarantee of benefits to individual athletes. At
and Paralympic movement and to fulfilling Con- the same time, the new Office of Sports and Fitness
gress’s vision, as set forth in the 1978 Ted Stevens that we recommend Congress establish will need
Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, is the need for funds to provide for the competitive grants it will

150

Recommendations

offer to support youth- and grassroots-sports de- tributions to the public funding of presidential camvelopment in our communities.
paigns and by states to support a variety of statebased initiatives. Indeed, such a system ought to be
While we are not urging any of the following specif- considered as well by state legislatures as a means
ically, it is our recommendation that Congress look to supplement funding for public or school-based
carefully at proposals as well as think creatively in sports and fitness infrastructure and programs.
general about establishing new and supplementary sources of funding to support all of these efforts, Congress may also wish to look abroad to emulate
particularly youth and grassroots sports. Below the other nations’ successes with new ways of securCommission has outlined three possible ideas for ing funding for high-performance athletes, such as
consideration. In addition, any of these potential lotteries or other fundraising tools. In the United
sources could also be tapped to provide an inde- Kingdom, a national lottery directly benefitting thatpendent revenue stream to the Team USA Athletes’ nation’s high-performance athletes was implementCommission in the future. Moreover, state gov- ed in the 1990s. The revenues from that lottery now
ernments should look carefully at these and other form the large majority of the funding that supports
ideas in order to supplement funding for the devel- the United Kingdom’s Olympic and Paralympic athopment of youth and grassroots sports programs at letes.311 This model may be applied here as well, eithe state and local levels.
ther to support our high-performance athletes or
our youth- and grassroots-sports programs. Though
One of the creative proposals our Commission some states established sports-funding lotteries inheard is to take advantage of the growing number partnership with USOPC in the early 1990s that wereof states permitting legal betting on certain sports. unsuccessful, it may be worth a new attempt, having
Congress should consider enacting a federal excise learned lessons that can be applied now, a generation
tax on income generated from legal sports betting, later.312 One important caveat is that these lotteries
with the proceeds automatically earmarked to sup- should not be designed to compete with lottery proport youth and grassroots programs or high-per- grams that specifically benefit public education.
formance athletes.. Given the uneven nature oflegalized sports betting across the fifty states, this In one of the focus groups the Commission held, theproposal may not be feasible unless sports betting parent of an athlete raised this idea of drawing on
becomes permissible throughout the country. The lottery revenues to benefit movement sports andCommission does not take a view on the legaliza- used it to highlight a broader point:tion or not of sports betting, but if and where it islegal it may provide a useful source of dedicatedI think [funding is] going to have to come froma large national program. Like in Europe, alsupplementary funding for the movement’s growthmost every country has a national sports lotand development through an excise tax.
tery. We could do that in the United States. …
But we’ve got to think big, and it’s got to be a
Another action Congress may wish to consider is
big national program, and it’s got to raise reallegislation directing the Internal Revenue Service
money if we’re going to make a dent in this(IRS) to add a donation checkbox to individuals’
problem.
federal income-tax filing forms. Voluntary contributions from taxpayers who check this box would
be earmarked for the Office of Sports and Fitness Like that parent, and like so many Americans, thefor its competitive grants; alternatively, Congress Commission agrees that we need to “think big.” If
could use such a mechanism to direct funding to Congress continues to hold that the U.S. Olympic
SafeSport. A checkbox option would be similar to and Paralympic movement yields public benefits
ones already used at the federal level to solicit con- –to the health and well-being of millions of Amer311

Tom Wigmore, “Britain’s Huge Investment in Summer Olympic Sports Pays Off,” The New York Times, August 22, 2016.

312

Michael Janofsky, “U.S.O.C. Seeks Funds Using State Lotteries,” The New York Times, October 3, 1991.

Recommendations

icans who participate in sports, to our diplomacy,
and to our reputation as a land of equal opportunity that values individuals’ labor—it has a responsibility to ensure that sufficient funding exists to
support these goals. It is up to Congress to explore
every feasible option toward that end. Congress
must not, once again, set an unfunded mandate forthe guiding institutions of this movement that so
greatly benefits the American people.

151

152

Appendix I

OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE PUBLIC HEARING:“The Future of Olympic and Paralympic Sports in America”
Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics
September 6, 2023
9:00am – 4:30pm
2123 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
START OF LIVE TRANSCRIPT
CO-CHAIR KOLLER: I would like to call thishearing to order and note that a majority of ourcommissioners are present and the others are following along via our live stream. I’d also like to remind everybody at this point to please silence yourcellphones so we can get through our hearing witha minimum of distractions.

they live, and millions of others who do participate
at all levels are burdened by the tremendous costs.
Congress established our bipartisan, independent
Commission to study these issues and charged U.S.
with making recommendations for how best to address them.

Since being constituted earlier this year, after aGood morning, Co-Chair Xiao, fellow commission- lengthy delay, our Commission has collected anders, witnesses, and members of the public who are sifted through tens of thousands of documents, inhere because they understand the significance of terviewed a wide and diverse group of individuals,
our study and the important contributions Olym- conducted numerous in depth surveys, solicitedpians and Paralympians make to our nation. The expert opinions, and held focus-group discussions
U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement stands at with movement stakeholders, these have included
a crossroads. Nearly half a century ago, Congress athletes, coaches, parents, abuse survivors, athletes’
enacted landmark legislation that established the rights advocates, individuals with disabilities, scholmodern U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee ars in sports law and education, officials from the U.S.
in response to a particular set of challenges pre- Olympic and Paralympic Committee, and the sports
sented by the United States’s approach to sport that governing bodies, as well as ordinary Americans.
engendered harm to athletes and disappointing Our work has been thorough, fair, and extensive.
results in international sports competition. Thatlegislation and the work that proceeded it, was Today’s hearing is the final step in our study, which
path-breaking. It established mechanisms to pro- concludes later this month. Throughout the day, we
tect athletes’ ability to compete and led to extraor- will be hearing from witnesses who will share infordinary success of the United States in Olympic and mation, insights, and perspectives from across the
Paralympic competition that every American ap- Olympic and Paralympic movements. We will hearpreciates.
from leaders, from the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, the U.S. Center for SafeSport, theAs we all know, however, the history of U.S. Olym- governing bodies, and the Team U.S. Athletes’ Compic- and Paralympic-movement sport over the last mission. We will listen to testimony from those who
several decades did not just feature unforgettable have survived abuse in sports, and those who areathletic achievement. It also includes far too many working to root it out. We will hear from long-timeexamples of athlete abuse, lack of transparency and advocates for better pay and benefits for the athletes
accountability, and significant pipeline issues. Mil- who work full time to bring Olympic and Paralympic
lions of young Americans do not have equitable ac- medals home for our nation, and we will hear aboutcess to movement sports in the communities where trends in youth sports participation, about barriers

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

153

to equitable access to sports, and about how to makethe system better governed and more accountable to
the American people it serves.

mission alongside fellow athletes, advocates, andtrue change-makers who are committed and havebeen committed to this movement of equity, inclusion, transparency, safety, and health and well-beAll of these components of our study including to- ing.
day’s testimony will inform the Commission’s final
report to Congress, which will be delivered ear- As an individual who holds many historically marly next year. That report will include recommen- ginalized identities, I proudly accepted this appointdations for action, which we hope Congress and ment as an opportunity to center those who have
movement stakeholders will follow.
made most vulnerable due to systems of oppression
and the inequities in sport. Centering those indiBefore we begin, I want to thank the House Energy viduals whose experiences live at the intersections
and Commerce Committee and its staff for the gen- of disability and race, disability and gender identierous use of this stately hearing room, which lends ty, disability and sexual orientation, disability anditself to the important work we are undertaking for age, disability and socio-economic status, disabilithe benefit of the American public. We appreciate ty and immigration status, and so on. Oftentimes,
the support we’ve received from Chairwoman Mc- the inclusion of Paralympians and the Paralympics
Morris-Rodgers, and Ranking Member Pallone, as in these crucial conversations are overlooked andwell as from Chairwoman Cantwell and Ranking afterthoughts, especially compared to our counterMember Cruz of the Senate Commerce Committee parts as the Olympians and the Olympics.
throughout this process.
When we’re talking about the integrity of sport
Now, I would like to welcome our distinguished and the protection of athletes, we must be intencommissioners who are able to join U.S. today. tional and committed to this work for all athletes.
They were selected by the House Energy and Com- I implore the USOPC and Congress to enact real,
merce Committee and Senate Commerce Commit- meaningful change that will positively affect andtee on a bipartisan basis to oversee our study and influence all athletes from the grassroots and youth
the development of our policy recommendations. levels to the Olympics and Paralympics. Thank you
Each commissioner will have two minutes to make so much.
an opening statement, and in the interest of time,
my Co-Chair Han Xiao is reserving and will deliver CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you Patty. I’ll now
a closing statement at the end of the hearing. We’ll invite Commissioner Rob Cohen to deliver his
begin with Commissioner Patty Cisneros Prevo.
opening statement.
COMMISSIONER CISNEROS PREVO: Good
morning, everyone. I want to thank the Co-Chairsof the Commission, Dionne Koller and Han Xiao,
for their leadership in this movement. I want tothank the members of the movement here seatednext me, all of the witnesses, and the guests. My
name is Patty Cisneros Prevo. I use pronouns she,her, and ella. I am a brown Mexican woman. Today
I come with a burnt-orange jacket and dark green
shirt. I have long brown hair that’s pulled back in a
braid. I am a Paralympian two-time gold medalist
in the sport of wheelchair basketball and a proudmom of a youth-soccer player and a budding jiu-jitsu competitor. I am honored to serve on this Com-COMMISSIONER COHEN: Good morning, everybody. Thank you very much for making time tobe here. It’s great to have everybody here. For thoseof you who don’t know me, I’m the Chair and CEOof the IMA Financial Group. We’re an integrated
financial-services company with 2,500 employees. We do work in retail and wholesale insurance,money management, and private-equity work. I’ve
been involved with the Olympic movement for
thirty-plus years in a number of different capacities. I’ve worked with NGBs and athletes on hosting
events, both international and national championship events through the Denver Sports Commission, which I founded about twenty-five years ago.

154

Appendix I

I’m a current board member of the United States
Olympic and Paralympic Foundation, and I alsochair the Games Hospitality Working Committee
underneath that group. I’m a board member of theUnited States Olympic and Paralympic Museum,and I was the bid leader for the Denver Olympic
Winter bid in 2014, ‘18, ‘22, ‘26, ‘30, and ‘34, and I’m
now currently on the board of the Salt Lake City
Bid Committee, which actually beat us in that process, and they asked me to join that group to bring
the Olympic back to the United States.
So, with that, I would just say that I believe thatthrough the work of this Commission, we have an
incredible opportunity to strengthen the Olympic
movement in the United States. In order to do so,
we have to be willing to recognize what is working,and we have to continue to do that on an ongoingbasis. We have to be real. A lot of things are actually working well. But, at the same time, we have to
be brutally honest about what is not working, andwe have to be willing to make those changes in order to strengthen the movement for all that are involved. And it’s really my hope that the output of
this Commission will in fact embrace both of thesetruths and that the Olympic movement in the United States will emerge stronger and better for having
gone through this process. So with that, I just thankyou again for being here today.
CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you Rob. Next, we willhear from Commissioner Benita Fitzgerald Mosley.
COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY:Good morning, everyone. My name is Benita Fitzgerald Mosley, and it’s a pleasure to be with you today.
First, I’d like to thank all the witnesses who’ll be testifying here today and those in the audience for participating in this very important hearing. I’d also like topublicly thank Senator Maria Cantwell for appointing
me to this Commission. Our work is critical to thesafety and welfare of our athletes and to the future
success of the Olympic movement. It is my distinct
honor to serve alongside my fellow commissioners.
I’m a two-time Olympian and an Olympic-gold
medalist in the 100-meter hurdles at the Los Angeles
Olympics in 1984. I call my gold medal the ‘gift thatkeeps on giving,’ and I want to pay that gift forward
by fulfilling my personal mission to help people inorganizations win gold medals in life and business. I
have served in a myriad of worlds within the Olympic movement, such as Chief Operating Officer of
the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, Chiefof Sport for U.S.A. Track and Field, as well as on several international Olympic Committee commissions.
I currently serve as CEO of Multiplying Good, an organization founded by Jacqueline Kennedy Onassisthat has been cultivating and celebrating greatness
through public service for over fifty years.
My approach as a commissioner is to combine myexperience as on Olympian, athlete advocate, business executive, and sports administrator, together
with my extensive knowledge of the Olympic movement to provide recommendations on topics that
I know will be discussed during the hearing today.
First, how the USOPC prioritizes the support, safety, and well-being of our athletes through its decision-making, resource allocation, hiring practices,
policymaking, SafeSport, and sport-performance
programs. Secondly, how to promote the wonderful
diversity of the Olympic and Paralympic movement
and highlight the urgency of providing a safe andinclusive environment for all athletes at every level.
And, lastly, how to use the power of sport to positively impact the lives of youth in communities throughout the United States.
In closing, I’d like to say thanks again to today’s witnesses. I know your testimony will greatly assist our
Commission in crafting an ambitious vision for the
U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement moving forward. Thank you.
CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you Benita. I’ll now
yield to Commissioner Nancy Hogshead for her
opening statement.
COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: I would just likereiterate everything that Benita said.
COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY:
You’ve only been doing that for thirty years… Oh, we
won’t say that…

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: Yeah, easily, or
exactly. Thank you, all. It’s a pleasure to be here. I’dalso like to thank Senator Maria Cantwell who appointed me to be on this Commission. My name is
Nancy Hogshead. I’m an eight-year U.S. Nationalteam member from 1976-1984, a two-time Olympian, and three-time Olympic champion in the1984 Olympics—from the age of 14-22. I’m now acivil rights lawyer. I run a non-profit called Champion Women. We provide legal advocacy for girls
and women in sports. I call on my background as
an athlete and as a rape survivor to inform my work.

155

the protections girls and women have in school
and colleges and universities. The Olympic andParalympic movement had no qualified staff to investigate abuse and provide respondents with due
process that they were owed under the Ted Stevens
Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, let alone training that would leave athletes and their families empowered to assert appropriate boundaries between
coaches and athletes.

Here was a child-serving organization that wasallowed to abuse, especially during the #MeToomovement. We’ve all come a long way since then.
When the “adults” in charge did it right, I got excel- Many of the players have changed, but the system,
lent aftercare after a post-rape PTSD that included the structure, has not changed nearly enough. Thosesome extraordinary accommodations. And I got let of you who got to see the documentary Athlete A,
down by adults, like when the IOC and the USOC showed the world why reform is needed. Athlete
did not take care of East Germans who were taking abuse in Olympic and Paralympic sport was unsteroids. We were expected to be gracious losers.
checked, rampant, and ongoing. In response to the
Nasser abuse and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
The Commission and this work has been a long Committee cover up, employees and board memtime coming. The Olympics and Paralympics are bers repeat “athletes first,” but they still hold this athe grittiest, grueliest, hard work—extraordinary type of power over athletes for their stipends, theirtalent, and a touch of magic. The games have come endorsement deals, the ultimate dream of being seto me in excellence, fair play, and integrity. They are lected onto the Olympic Committee. It is this powa gift to this country.
erlessness that makes our athletes so susceptible toabuse, and it has to be stopped.
In 2010, I received a call from a woman who wassexually abused by her coach. The athlete was not Between 2016 and 2020, the House and the Sentraining as part of a school sport, where the re- ate held numerous hearings on sexual abuse in thequirements of Title IX would’ve applied, and that Olympic movement. I was with my friend, Mara
was my expertise at the time. They were training Guban, who runs the Equality League as we worked
in a club that was a member of the Olympic and with Congress on how to make changes. But theParalympic movement, and I did what any lawyer four major reports have detailed what the goverwould do, which is, I called upon the experts in the nance failures have been. The board has no constitmovement to find out what the legal framework uency or shareholders, no owners, no independentwas. And what I found out was chilling. There was oversight, and certainly is not accountable to athno legal duty to protect athletes from abuse. There letes that they’re supposed to be serving. Every day
was no requirement to predict and prevent and no of inaction it continues.
duty to address the abuse after it happened. There
was no insurance in many cases, for many of the Again, I’m thrilled to be able to be on this Comclubs. There were no background checks being mission, and I’m looking forward to hearing all thedone. There was no duty to report abuse to the po- witnesses and the types of change that we are allice or to other authorities. Worse, I harken back lowed to make. Let’s keep in mind that this is not
to my own competitive years and, to my astonish- 800 athletes once every four years. This is 16 milment, the Olympic and Paralympic culture allowed lion athletes. Thank you.
coaches to “date” their athletes. There was someconcern about under-age athletes, but nothing like

156

Appendix I

CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you. Commissioner
Karin Korb will now deliver her opening statement.
COMMISSIONER KORB: Good morning, everyone. Thank you to our Co-Chairs, commissioners,
witnesses, and guests. It is an absolute privilege to
be sitting in front of you today as a commissioner. My name is Karin Korb, my pronouns are she/her. I am a disabled, wheelchair-using white woman with multicolored blond hair, wearing an offwhite blouse and a black jacket. Here’s a quick story. I arrived yesterday. As a disabled person, travel
is often daunting. You’re never really sure if yourwheelchair’s going to make it in one piece. How
will you get to your hotel? Will your hotel be wheelchair accessible? Will the elevator even work? Even
though all of that is mandated by the law for me tohave access, I still can’t count on it. We still can’t
count on it. I’m happy to report that my trip yesterday was seamless—a miracle! Even down to getting a wheelchair-accessible taxi. I was sharing thiswith a colleague, and this is what my colleague said
to me—she said: “Karin, I love environments thatleave no one behind.” And I sat back, and I thought
about that, and I want you all to think about thattoday as we proceed. How many times do you think
youth and adults with disabilities are in sporting
environments where they are left behind? Are wetruly creating sport environments that leave no one
behind? What pathways, what pipelines to sporting
participation have been created with and for disabled youth and adults?
Nearly 56% of people with disabilities do not engage
in any type of physical activity, compared to their
non-disabled peers. Nearly 1.5 million students
with disabilities in public primary and secondary
schools are excluded from having access to any
type of sporting competition. Obesity rates for disabled youth, ages two to seventeen, are 38% higher
than non-disabled children, and physical-activity
levels for disabled youth are nearly 50% lower thannon-disabled children.
And here’s a quick history about myself. I’m anathlete. My sport of passion is gymnastics. It’s also
the sport wherein I broke my back and became awheelchair user and paralyzed. I was a junior inhigh school. I was sixteen. And I share this because
there was no pathway back to sport for me. It was
twelve years before I was introduced to adapted
sport. This time, it was wheelchair tennis, and I
was twenty-eight years old. I became a two-timeParalympian, ten world team. I was proud to bepart of U.S.A. Wheelchair Tennis. I am the first
person with a discernible disability to receive a Division I scholarship to Georgia State University toplay on their inaugural intercollegiate wheelchairtennis team. I’ve held leadership positions within multiple adapted-sport organizations. I served
on various sport-focused boards, including various USOPC-committee positions. I’ve served twoquads—that’s eight years—on the USOPC Athlete
Advisory Council, charged with creating U.S. SafeSport, as well as changing the name from USOC to
USOPC. Currently, I am the Co-Chair of the Sport
Integrity Global Alliance’s Gender, Race, Inclusion,and Diversity Committee.
Today is a day of listening, reflection, transparency, and accountability. My trust is that the data that
we and our remarkable staff—thank you so much—
have prepared for you all today, along with our witness testimonies, you will recognize the overarching value that must be prioritized and implemented
is equity, wherein we can recognize the humanityof those who have historically been erased within
the Olympic and Paralympic movement. And then,maybe, maybe then, we too can be part of the population that is also never left behind. It’s nothing
without us. Thank you so much.
CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you Karin. Commissioner Moses, I’ll recognize you for an opening
statement at this time.
COMMISSIONER MOSES: Thank you verymuch. My name is Moses—Edwin Moses. I consider myself a seasoned veteran. I’ve been around in the
Olympic movement now, it’s hard to believe, but forforty-seven years, going back to the 1976 Olympics.
In that same number of years, and seconds it takes
me, or took me to go around a track. But I’ve seen
the United States Olympic and Paralympic movement grow from the pre-1978 Amateur Sports Act
through the Steinbrenner Commission, from aTranscript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

time in which there was no athlete representationand very little consideration for disabled athletes.

157

second things by putting them first. You can getsecond things only by putting first things first.”
Money and survival are paradigmatic and very imMy gold medal was in 1976 in the 400[-meter] hur- portant second things. But as one C.S. Lewis expert
dles. I experienced the boycott in 1980 of Moscow explained the principle: “The society that believes
when I was one of the athletes who was rated the in nothing worth surviving for, beyond mere surmost likely to win their race. In 1984, I experienced vival, will not survive.”the best moment of the United States Olympic
Committee with the Olympics in Los Angeles. In First things in the future of Olympic and Paralym1988, we went through the biggest drug scandal in pic sports in America include our core American
sports with Ben Johnson. I was appointed in 1981 values, such as integrity, accountability, and governas the first IOC Athlete’s Commissioner from the ment transparency, and of course the safety, health,
United States and served on several commissions, and well-being of our Olympic and Paralympic
including the Coordination Commission, the Eth- athletes. Government transparency is embedded
ics Commission, the Medical Commission, the in our Constitution itself, providing each of us theApartheid in Sport Commission. I also was a Chair- constitutional right to know how our government
man and a member of USADA for over twelve spends our money. Article I, Section 9, of our Conyears, Chairman for ten years of the United States stitution provides that: “A regular statement andAnti-Doping Agency, and also was on the Executive account of the receipts and expenditures of all pubCommittee when WADA went through some of its lic money shall be published from time to time.”
toughest times with the scandal in Sochi and how
to deal with the Russian incursion on the Olympic While the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic CommitGames. But, most of all, I’m just a very interested tee is, by no means, a government agency like theobserver, and I’m looking forward to hearing what Department of Defense, it is a Congressionally
our witnesses have to say. And, at the end of the chartered corporation. In the Ted Stevens Olympic
day, as all of our colleagues want to see, we want to and Amateur Sports Act, Congress confirmed thatbring back the Olympic movement and put it in a the Committee’s authorities include the authority
position so that in 2028 we can experience the same to organize, finance, and control the representation
type of feeling that we experienced in 1984. Thank of the United States in the competitions and eventsyou.
at the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games.
Congress has also granted the Committee what
CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you, Edwin. Our fi- amounts to a monopoly to raise revenues utiliznal opening statement today will be from Commis- ing the Olympic name and symbols, including thesioner Joseph Schmitz.
five interlocking rings. Congress has also mandated, starting in January of 2021, that the Committee
COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: Good morning. make an annual payment of $20 million to the UnitI want to thank our Chair and Co-Chair, Dionne ed States Center for SafeSport for operating costs
Koller and Han Xiao, for their leadership. My back- of the Center.
ground that is most relevant to today’s hearing is
my years of experience as the Senate-confirmed I would like to thank Congress for establishing thisInspector General of the Department of Defense, Commission, our staff and my fellow commissiondealing with challenges such as sexual assaults at ers for all their hard work and dedication leading
our three national service academies and human up to today, and our witnesses for participating in
trafficking around the world.
today’s hearing. I look forward to hearing from ourwitnesses about both our first and second things,
The most important lesson learned that I applied as applied to the future of Olympic and Paralympic
as Inspector General is what C.S. Lewis called the sports in America. Thank you.
principle of first and second things. “You can’t get

158

Appendix I

CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you Joe. At this time,
I want to invite our first witness to be seated at thetable. This introductory session of our hearing will
provide the Commission with an overview of someof the key issues and challenges facing the movement as well as those facing Congress in providing
public oversight and setting policy.
We’re pleased to have sports historian Victoria Jackson, Associate Professor of History at Arizona State
University, and a former collegiate cross-country
and track-and-field champion athlete. She has written and lectured extensively about the developmentof our current system for Olympic- and Paralympic-movement sports, and we appreciate her participation this morning. Professor Jackson, welcome.
Along with our other witnesses today, we ask thatyou please keep your testimony to five minutes.
You’ll see a timer on your microphone. If any witnesses have more than five minutes’ worth of prepared remarks, they are welcome to enter the remainder of that extended testimony into the official
hearing record.
Professor Jackson, the Commission will now hear
your prepared testimony.
DR. JACKSON: This is going to make C.S. Lewis
a little bit annoyed, but I was told I had ten minutes.
CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Professor Jackson, go
ahead and do your best to keep to our timing, andyou can take your ten minutes, and we’ll adjust as
necessary. But anything you can do to keep us ontime, I appreciate.
DR. JACKSON: Okay.
CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you.
DR. JACKSON: Okay. Thank you. Thank you to
the Commission.

in the world. It is a vast, loose collection of private,public, and nonprofit entities. It does not have atight organizational structure aligning all constituencies and sectors within a sports ministry but
does allow for a mostly free flow of athletes, coaches, and administrators across bodies.
It is built on trust. Trust that the greater agenda isa shared one. Trust that organizations share a common mission, set of goals, and understanding of
the purpose of sport. Trust in free enterprise. Trustthat the system is democratic and meritocraticand serves all Americans—and that all Americans
can access and understand the system. Trust that
athletes and their health and well-being are at theheart of the enterprise.
The past half century is, indeed, marked by American athletes’ success on the international stage. But,
in too many cases, this success has come despite—
and not because of—the design of the American
sports ecosystem. The past half century is also
marked by mistakes, tragedies, and harms enduredby athletes, many of which can be explained by thelargely hands-off approach to regulation and scant
oversight that have made athletes vulnerable.
Athletes have pushed for changes within the American Olympic and Paralympic movement, including
increased athlete representation and governance;increased and equitable support for athletes withdisabilities; more monies going directly to athletes,
athlete insurance, and health care; athlete pregnancy, maternity, and post-partum protections;and increased mental-health and well-being support. Athletes’ courageous efforts to bring an end
to abuse in sport have inspired a widespread global
reckoning and have resulted in the establishment
for the U.S. Center for SafeSport and more-robust
athlete-protection mechanisms. Trust, it turns out,
depends upon a hard backstop of regulation, coordination, transparency, and accountability throughchecks on power, something that the American
sports ecosystem does not have.

The United States takes pride in a distinctly American approach to sport that is credited for Team Since you’ve asked a historian to set the stage, it
USA’s long-running success in international com- is time for a quick history lesson. The Amateur
petition. The American sports ecosystem is unique Sports Act, signed into law by President JimmyTranscript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

Carter in 1978, created the foundation of the current structure for Olympic, Paralympic, and grassroots sports that the United States has today. The
Sports Act established the United States Olympic
Committee, now the United States Olympic andParalympic Committee, as a federally chartered
non-profit corporation. The law does not grant the
USOPC the authority to regulate the entirety of theAmerican sports ecosystem, nor does it appropriate
federal funds to support Olympic athletes. Rather,
the law charges the USOPC with a dual mandate tolead both the narrow apex, high-performance elite
Olympic and Paralympic sports, and the massive
base: grassroots-, community-, and youth-sports ofthe pyramid.

159

focus on Olympic success at the expense of thegrassroots mandate, the USOPC and NGBs cannot
claim primary responsibility for American sporting
excellence on a global stage.
That distinction belongs to the most improbableand the most uniquely American of protagonists
in our saga: institutions of higher learning. For the
past half century, for most athletes and most sports,
Olympic development has happened outside of the
USOPC’s purview and within school sports. Seventy-seven percent of U.S. Olympians, 475 out of
613 athletes in the Tokyo Summer Olympic Games,
spent time competing in American college-sports
programs. School-sports organizations like the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the National Federation of State High School Associations,hold member-organization status in NGBs. But
these organizations and their schools have charted
a different course in their sports-policy and business model. An elite, under-23 sport system has
grown in higher education over the past fifty years
to make American college sports the best Olympic
development system in the world.

Despite this charge, operationally, the USOPC has
held a narrow focus on Olympic and, to a lesser degree, Paralympic success. The Sports Act also created sport-by-sport national governing bodies, andthe NGBs also hold the dual mandate of serving
both top-tier elite performance and grassroots. Despite amendments to the Sports Act in 1998, athletes with disabilities and disabled sports organizations have encountered frustrations as they havesought to make the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic The unique business model of big-time college
movement fully inclusive and equitably supportive sports is centered around college football, whichof athletes with disabilities.
subsidizes Olympic sports in American universities.
Collegiate amateurism forms the foundation of thisThe many pressures to prioritize top-of-pyramid business model. With a cap on our athlete compensuccess, coupled with the absence of funding or sation keeping football-labor costs down, but withincentives to support grassroots, have meant that no caps on spending, schools are incentivized to
the USOPC has only ever been successful in filling maximize their chances of winning by spending thehalf of its dual mandate. The President’s Council most money to woo the best talent without directly
on Fitness—now Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition— paying athletes. As big-time college sports has balestablished in 1956 by President Dwight D. Eisen- looned into a multi-billion dollar industry, schools
hower, also has sought to increase awareness about have increased spending on coaches, administrathe benefits of physical activity and to promote the tive positions, training and competition facilities,
individual, community, and national value of play medical and academic-support programs, and othon health. But USOPC and a President’s Counsel er benefits enjoyed by all athletes in all sports.
with good intentions, yet no substantial resources,
has left grassroots, community, and youth sports This best-in-world sports infrastructure attracts theunderserved. Meanwhile, trust in free enterprise world’s best athletes. More than 20,000 international
has enabled the explosive growth of a pay-to-play, athletes participate in NCAA sports each year. The
privatized youth-sports world, making the Ameri- Power Five conferences of the Atlantic Coast Concan sports ecosystem not one of sports for all, but ference, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and Southeastern
one of restricted access and privilege. For all their Conference sent 749 Olympic athletes to the 2016
historical contributions and their single-minded Rio de Janeiro Summer Olympic Games with 442

160

Appendix I

athletes, or 59%, representing any one of more thanfifty countries other than Team USA. At the 2023
Women’s World Cup in Australia and New Zealand,
151 athletes spent time developing at American college-soccer programs. So, again, it is worth pausing
here to marvel at this improbable collegiate scheme.
College football, that most American of all pursuits,
is paying for the development of Olympic talentfrom all corners of the globe.

Much like the USOPC has neglected its grassroots responsibilities in pursuit of Olympic gold, so too havemedia activists in the government focused a policy microscope and a public spotlight on elite college sports
at the expense of the country’s K-12 schoolchildren.
K-12 school sports reflect broader societal barriers
that work to keep too many kids from low-income
families, kids of color, kids with disabilities, and girls
out of sport. Additionally, K-12 schools’ varied levelsof funding make access to many sports teams offered
The United States is the last remaining place in the by college programs—and, therefore, access to Olymworld where the term “amateur” is still used to de- pic development—too often a product of privilege.
scribe a major category of sports participation. In
the current Olympic Charter, “amateur” appears The good news is that the United States has a lot toexactly zero times. In the 2023-24 NCAA Division work with. I hope this view from 10,000 feet of the
I Manual, it appears 194 times. The term “amateur” past fifty years of the American sports ecosystem isis fluid, and it is its dynamic nature that causes con- useful to the Commission, to Congress, and to future
fusion in the United States. Today’s school-sports generations of Americans. Thank you.
programs use “amateur” in a way to suggest that getting an education and getting paid to play directly by CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you, Professor Jackson.
educational institutions are mutually exclusive. Am- I want to apologize for the confusion over the timing,
ateurism has made college athletes vulnerable and and I do want to remind our witnesses this morning
has exposed them to harm. Much like Olympic and to please do your best to keep to the five minutes, orParalympic athletes’ efforts have pushed reforms, we will never be able to get to lunch. So, I apologize
college athletes have done the same to force schools for that, Professor Jackson.
to provide a quality education, non-revocable grants
and aid, medical coverage and mental-health care, I’m going to now yield to my Co-Chair, Han Xiao, who
protections from abuse, and the right, like all other will be leading our questioning of witnesses today.
students on campus as well as their coaches, to makemoney from third parties.
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you, Dionne. Professor
Jackson, thanks for being here with us today. I will
Gender equity became a principle in school-sports actually yield my time in this session to Commisorganizations thanks to their being subject to educa- sioner Fitzgerald Mosley for a question.
tional civil-rights laws that mandate equal opportunity in education programs, including sports. When the COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY:Sports Act passed, the NCAA was still a men’s-only Good morning. In your testimony, you mentioned
sports organization, but colleges and universities were the connection between NCAA and the Olympic
already grappling with how to support women’s inter- and Paralympic movements and the number ofcollegiate athletics in an equitable way to comply with athletes that are sponsored by major institutions,
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. To- intercollegiate institutions, not only in the Unitedday, while acknowledging the juggernaut that is men’s States but across the world. I want you to speak acollege football, American women enjoy equitable ac- little bit more about how the current systems relate
cess to a wide range of best-in-world sports programs. to each other and what gaps in athletes’ rights or
Fifty-one years after the passage of Title IX, however, protections you think exist and how can we might
K-12 schools have not enjoyed the same attention, en- change that?
ergy, and mandatory reporting mechanisms to ensure
gender equity in school sports.
DR. JACKSON: Thank you, Benita—and I’m a
track-and-field person also…

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY: I
know. I heard that.

161

With the history of this movement in mind, let us
now turn to the issues of governance and accountability. We are fortunate to have with us this mornDR. JACKSON: ... so, hello.
ing representatives from the U.S. Olympic andParalympic Committee, the Team USA Athletes’
Yeah, I mean, the University of Oregon is a good Commission and the National Governing Bodies
example of the intersection of these two bodies and, Council. All three play a critical role in the goverwell, last year, in 2022, Eugene, Oregon—the Uni- nance of the movement.
versity of Oregon—hosted a Pac-12 track-and-fieldchampionships, an NCAA track-and-field cham- Indeed, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Compionships, the U.S.A. Track and Field National mittee, or USOPC, has been statutorily mandated
Championships—which served as qualifying for a by Congress to oversee movement sports in ourWorld Championships, which is also hosted in Eu- country at all levels as a quasi-governmental, prigene—right in the center of the university campus. vate organization. It’s CEO, Sarah Hirshland, ishere today, and I want to thank her for recognizThis system does not exist anywhere else in the world, ing this important opportunity to share USOPC’s
and, because of the growth, the exponential growth, perspectives on key issues with the Commission.
and, you know, from the business of college football She is joined at the table by the Executive Director
to build this into a multi-billion dollar industry, the of the Team USA Athletes’ Commission, Elizabeth
world athletes come here. If you are a water-polo Ramsey, and by NGB Council Chair, Pat Kelleher,
player in France or a tennis player in Hungary or, I who is also Executive Director of U.S.A. Hockey.
mean, anywhere in the world, one of the best plac- Ms. Hirshland, I invite you to share your preparedes for you to develop and come to train to become testimony313 with us, followed by Ms. Ramsey anda world-class athlete is through American college Mr. Kelleher, before we begin questions from thesports. This serves U.S. athletes well, too. So, that’s commissioners.
an important thing to keep in mind, because it is theworld’s best talent that everybody gets to compete MS. HIRSHLAND: Thank you, and good mornagainst on a regular basis, and it’s a beautiful thing.
ing, members of the Commission. It is with sincere
gratitude I thank you for your important work supThe future looks troubling in that football players porting the Olympic and Paralympic community
might actually finally get what they deserve, which and for the opportunity to be here today.
means football might not be subsidizing Americancollege sports much longer. So, I’ve been kind of After five years serving as the CEO of the United
banging on the walls and pots and pans to say: “Let’s States Olympic and Paralympic Committee, I standfind new subsidization models for this wonderful before you today with stronger conviction thanOlympic-development pathway we have through ever about Team USA’s positive impact on American communities, our youth, and those we inspire
American college sports.”
and support globally. Team USA athletes have consistently graced the global stage with their bravery,
COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY:
unity, humanity, and unwavering commitment toThank you.
excellence. As the world changes around us, so do
CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you, Professor Jack- the Olympic and Paralympic movements, bringing
son. Unfortunately, we only have time for one ques- new challenges. However, we remain resolute intion this morning, but we appreciate you having our mission to serve Team USA athletes, upholdjoined us today to provide us with your perspective our values, and strengthen our resolve. In recent
and this very, very useful historical overview as a years, we have made significant strides in athlete
safety, athlete representation, mental health, andstarting point for today.
313

Extended written testimony submitted by Sarah Hirshland appears following the live transcript on p. 226.

162

Appendix I

inclusivity. We have spearheaded transformativechanges within our governance, including increasing athlete representation on our Board of Directors
and our governance commissions and investing inthe strength and efficacy of the Team USA Athletes’
Commission. These reforms, coupled with our annual athlete listening survey, ensure athletes’ voices
are heard in decision-making processes. They alsoenhance our understanding and our responsiveness to their needs.

Looking ahead to hosting the world for the 2028
games in L.A., and potentially a winter games in
the following decade, we are confident that TeamUSA will represent our nation proudly, both ascompetitors and as global ambassadors for sport,leaving a legacy that transcends the competition
itself. Our vision is to chart a stronger future, making Team USA’s performance the most successful
and diverse in history, ensuring top-notch athlete
experiences, holistic wellness, and Team USA pride.
We’re equally dedicated to fair play and promoting
Athletes’ mental well-being is a new cornerstone of a positive sport culture while aiming to generate
our quest for greatness. We have introduced com- record-breaking support for Team USA that will
prehensive programs and resources that empower provide stability well into the future, and we willathletes, acknowledging their needs as individuals not do it alone. The collaboration and dedicationand equipping Team USA to excel both on and off of the complex sports ecosystem in the U.S.—comthe field. Our dedication to athlete safety remains prised of hundreds of sports organizations and theunyielding. We have set up robust measures and pol- athletes, coaches, families, sponsors, donors, fans,icies to protect, support, and empower athletes with and everyone who supports them—is the backbone
extensive training, transparent reporting mecha- of American sports. Each plays a crucial role in thisnisms, thorough background checks, and reinforced movement. We are all part of Team USA.
athlete-protection policies. We aim to be the strongest allies for Team USA athletes and the broader Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I’m
Olympic and Paralympic community.
humbled to be part of this era in Team USA’s history, and I’m eager to advance sport for future genWe are now proudly called the United States Olym- erations of Americans. I look forward to answering
pic and Paralympic Committee. Our Paralympians’ your questions.
inclusion in our name is intentional and uniqueamong national Olympic committees around the CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you. Ms. Ramsey?314
world. It is a proud affirmation of human potential.
We continue to elevate the voices of our Paralym- MS. RAMSEY: Commissioners, good morning.
pians to celebrate their triumphs and endeavor to Thank you for the opportunity to testify as part ofcreate a platform that recognizes their accomplish- this public hearing. My name is Elizabeth Ramsey,
and I serve as the Executive Director of the Teamments.
USA Athletes’ Commission, formerly known as the
The recent Tokyo and Beijing games brought extraor- United States Olympic and Paralympic Athletes
dinary excitement as hundreds of athletes represent- Advisory Council. I am the first Executive Director
ed our nation. Despite the unprecedented challenges of Team USA AC, and I’ve served in my role sinceof the pandemic, they inspired us and created lifelong July 2020.
memories. Athletes such as Lydia Jacoby, the seventeen-year-old who brought home Alaska’s first-ever Team USA AC serves as the representative group
Olympic gold medal in swimming; Erin Jackson, the and official voice of approximately 5,000 Team USA
first Black woman to win a gold medal at the Win- athletes. Each representative is elected by their felter Games; and Oksana Masters, the most decorated low athletes. We are responsible for broadening
Paralympian of all time. They not only made histo- communication between the USOPC and active
ry but inspired countless young athletes to push the athletes and serve as a source of input and advice
to the USOPC Board of Directors. We facilitateboundaries of what is possible.
314

Extended written testimony submitted by Elizabeth Ramsey appears following the live transcript on p. 228.

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

and represent the athlete voice and decision-making within the Olympic and Paralympic movement.
With the limited resources and access provided, we
attempt to support all athletes during the games andadvocate on their behalf regarding on- and off-thefield-of-play issues. Even without an official policy
in place by the USOPC, we ensure there is athlete
representation on all USOPC working groups, task
forces, and committees, and we provide resources,
education, and support to athlete representatives
serving on their National Governing Bodies’ boards
and international committees.

163

sponsors, and any fundraising it does is offset by
the budget allotment from the USOPC. In fact, the
USOPC could, in theory, hold back all the funding
for the Team USA AC. Without adequate resources,
we are unable to provide critical services to TeamUSA athletes.

Second, because Team USA AC is not a legally independent body, it has been challenging for ourathlete representatives and myself and staff to form
trusting, quality relationships with some of theathletes it serves to represent. Many athletes still
believe I work for the USOPC and, therefore, someFor many years, Team USA AC was largely unfund- times believe I do not have the athletes’ best intered and, as a result, was not able to provide the impact ests in mind when making decisions.
intended by the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur
Sports Act or provide the support the athletes need- Third, Team USA AC is not given the access or infored. This was, in part, because the Team USA AC was mation it needs from the USOPC to advocate effeccomprised fully of athlete volunteers without staff tively for all Team USA athletes. Such access is critisupport, whereas other entities, like the USOPC and cal because we are the sole organization tasked with
NGBs, had full-time employees.
advocacy on behalf of these athletes. As an example,
during the first few days of the Tokyo games, I was
Finally, in January 2020, the USOPC and Team not given the same access to venues, events, transUSA Athletes Commission signed a Memorandum portation that was provided to other USOPC execof Understanding that allocated an annual budget utives. This lack of access obstructed my ability tofrom the USOPC to the Team USA AC. As a result connect with the athletes or champion on their beof this new funding, my position was created. Since half during the games as well as negatively impacted
the passing of the Act in 1978, Team USA AC has their perception of my influence. Another example
evolved to do much more than simply “ensure com- of the lack of access to information is that our athlete
munication,” as directed by the Act. We advocate on representatives have not been given by some of theirbehalf of Team USA athletes, ensure that they have a NGBs or the USOPC names and contact informameaningful voice, and empower Team USA athletes tion for the very athletes they represent. These are all
to be change agents. The movement has made great barriers to effective athlete representation.
strides in improving the system for athletes andstrengthening the athlete voice. However, there are I am before you today to ask for your assistance instill many improvements that can be made.
giving Team USA AC the support it needs to be impactful, more effective, and better recognized withTeam USA AC is hamstrung in many ways due to its in the movement. To accomplish this, we believe thecomplex link to the USOPC. The Act is extremely Act should be amended to give Team USA AC indevague when it comes to the structure of the Team pendence from the USOPC while still being recogUSA AC. The Act states the USOPC must “establish nized by the USOPC as the official representativeand maintain an athletes’ advisory council.” But, un- body of Team USA athletes. Were it a completely
der this governance structure, Team USA AC is an independent body disconnected from the USOPC,
organization within the USOPC, which creates nu- Team USA AC would be able to gain more athletes’
merous challenges.
trust and have the autonomy to make decisions that
benefit athletes without oversight from the USOPC.
First, Team USA AC relies solely on the USOPC for Additionally, it is imperative that Team USA AC is
all of its funding. It is prohibited from obtaining given the access it needs to garner visibility, aware-

164

Appendix I

ness, and recognition among the entire movement The mission of the National Governing Bodies
as the official organization representing Team USA Council is to support the interest of athletes andathletes. We understand that these are not simple NGBs through collaboration, advocacy, and partasks, but we believe they are necessary so that we nership with the Team USA Athletes’ Commission,
can serve, support, and advocate for all Team USA the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, andathletes. Thank you for your time.
other stakeholders. The NGBs share common goals,
and we rely on their representatives on our Council
CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you. Mr. Kelleher?
to address issues, voice concerns, and work towards
collective solutions. As Chair of this NGB Council,
MR. KELLEHER: Distinguished members of the I greatly appreciate the engagement, passion, exCongressional Commission, thank you for inviting pertise, collaboration, and overall genuine care theus here today. On behalf of all fifty national govern- group has toward further improving the movement
ing bodies, we greatly appreciate the important and and the desire to take consequential steps forward
meaningful work you are engaging in to help better to continue fostering a better environment for aththe U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement. As letes and everyone involved in our sports.
national governing bodies, or NGBs, we are proudof the important role we play in providing opportu- Along with the important work you as a commisnities for children and families to be physically ac- sioner engage with, the NGB Council has identified
tive, be part of a team, to compete, and—for some— two major initiatives as focal points. Number one:to have the chance to represent the United States athlete safety, which includes the U.S. Center forat the Olympic and Paralympic Games. We know Safe Sport. And, number two: resource allocation.
the positive impact participating in sports can have,
and we’re focused and committed to doing every- The safety of all participants is our most important
thing we can to provide the safest and most-sup- priority. To achieve this, a healthy working relaportive environment for everyone involved. We’ve tionship with the U.S. Center for Safe Sport is crutaken meaningful steps forward within the move- cial. We remain hopeful, through our invested time
ment over the past several years, with athlete repre- and resources, that we will be able to build a stronsentation, safety, and wellness at the forefront, and, ger, more collaborative working relationship withwhile much progress has been made, we recognize the Center. The Center completions of cases by adthat there’s more work in front of us.
ministrative closure, which has reached in excess
of 70%, must be addressed, and we strongly believe
As you’re aware, NGBs come in different sizes and that government funding and oversight of the Cendifferent shapes, including the number of partici- ter, along with a fresh look at the statute, would impants under our organizations, our staff sizes, our prove its operational effectiveness and confidence
financial resources, and our missions. For example, in the Center by others.
our friends at U.S.A. Bobsled and Skeleton, there
is a limited youth component with their sport with Many NGBs are facing increased pressure for particless than ten total participants in the U.S. In con- ipation in their sports from non-NGB organizations
trast, for us at U.S.A. Hockey—and others, like under the premise that it’s easier for these sport orU.S.A. Wrestling, U.S.A. Swimming, and U.S.A. ganizations to operate outside the USOPC and the
Gymnastics—grassroots youth participation in- Center for SafeSport’s authority and governmental
cludes tens of thousands and is at the core of what requirements. Our strong position is that Congress
we are involved with on a daily basis as an NGB. must broaden the applicability of safeguarding pracWhile NGBs have many differences, we are all alike tices and requirements to all youth-serving sports
in our love, passion, and commitment to helping organizations to ensure consistent safety standards.
develop athletes, promoting sport, and being an Relative to resources, the NGB Council is currentimportant conduit in the success of our Olympic ly working through challenges related to competiand Paralympic teams.
tive-funding allocations within the USOPC to NGBs,

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

because, without increased resources, the UnitedStates will be challenged to maintain its status as aworld leader in competition.

165

That said, the remit or the purview of that does notinclude all of the organizations and entities within
what is a very, very fragmented sport environment
in this country. We heard Dr. Jackson’s testimony
In the end, NGBs provide the foundation for sport in this morning talking about the fragmentation justAmerica. We help our youth become the next gener- among education-based sport organizations, andation of leaders. We foster Olympic and Paralympic certainly that fragmentation exists quite broadly
dreams and promote a lifelong love of sport. It’s a big across sport organizations everywhere.
responsibility that we all take very seriously, because
we know the important role that sport plays in the fab- CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. The next question
ric of society in our great nation. As we work together will be from Commissioner Cohen.
to empower a strong Team USA for the 2024 Gamesin Paris, the 2026 Games in Italy, and ultimately look COMMISSIONER COHEN: My question is alsoahead to hosting the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic for Ms. Hirshland, and on the same lines of what
Games at home in Los Angeles, we know Ameri- you were just talking about. Several national govcans are excited to be inspired by the great athletes erning bodies have been decertified since 2017, andwho represent the United States, and we’re focused our Commission has heard from a number of difon providing our athletes the resources they need to ferent groups that the USOPC is overcorrecting
shine on what is the biggest stage in sports, the Olym- based on the recent NGB scandals. And so, I’m justpic and Paralympic Games. Thank you for your time. curious, how does the USOPC ensure that NGBs
don’t fall out of compliance with these new requireCO-CHAIR XIAO: Thanks to all of the witnesses ments and risk being decertified, given their essenon this panel for sharing your testimony with us. I’d tial role to sport?
like to start with a question for Ms. Hirshland. In thepast, in response to concerns that the USOPC has fo- MS. HIRSHLAND: Yeah. Thanks for the question.
cused too much on high-performance athletes to the You know, it’s been quite a journey for all of us as
exclusion of youth and grassroot sports and athletes, we’ve created and built our ethics and compliance
your predecessors told Congress that it “cannot be function, focusing on both defining and setting
all things to all people.” Is the USOPC in a position those standards and providing that, you know, set
to oversee the coordination and development of all of standards to the national governing bodies whichyouth and grassroots sports in our country effectively, is, as we heard Pat’s testimony, you know, have vastas the current law directs, or would it be more effec- sizes of resources and capabilities. But the process
tive if Congress were to give that responsibility to an- has been pretty clear around, you know, our phiother entity?
losophy is, first, how do we help NGBs be wildly
successful? We created an NGB-services function
MS. HIRSHLAND: Thanks. Good morning. You whose sole purpose is to try to help NGBs with bestknow, I think it’s a really important question, and we practices around finance and human resources andplay a critical role and have made incredible strides in administration and, predominantly, governancethe last several years in creating a set of standards de- and have come a long way in helping NGBs in those
fined as our compliance standards as we think about areas.
national governing bodies and the certification process that’s been put in place over the past few years. At the same time, where we see audit findings that
And those standards are high and represent, you are of high risk, as we’re doing audits, it’s importknow, excellence in sport administration, and we feel ant that those findings be both clearly delineatedvery confident that, in partnership with the national for the NGBs, that there be, you know, a mediagoverning bodies, we have elevated the quality and tion process in place to fix those things. And, what
caliber of sport administration in this country over we’ve seen over the course of time is, the number ofthe last several years.
audit findings that we’re seeing are coming down,

166

Appendix I

and the time with which those findings are being, Ramsey, you spoke of trust being an issue at the
you know, acted upon and fixed is shortening.
center of the Athletes’ Commission’s work. Can
you expand a little further on why there is still a
And so, there’s real progress being made in the misperception of athletes being able to trust the
NGB community around that. That said, you are AC in spite of being the voice of athletes within theright. There are NGBs that continue to struggle, movement?
and when they struggle we have taken a firm stanceat saying, you know, we are not going to certify an MS. RAMSEY: Yes. Thank you for your question.
organization in good standing that can’t meet the It’s kind of what I alluded to. You know, I’ll give you
standards that are expected of them.
examples. When I’m being introduced in front of
athletes, I give this whole spiel every time to enCO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. I have a question sure that they know I’m a safe space, and when I go
for Mr. Kelleher. You mention in your testimony the into a room to advocate for them, that I can’t feardifferences in needs between large and small NGBs. retaliation of my job, or if I disagree with someone.
Do you see the USOPC as currently meeting the And, so, I go through the whole spiel of, yes, I get
unique needs of both the small and the large NGBs? my paycheck from the USOPC. That’s what it says.
Particularly, in what ways is the system succeeding, We get all of our funding. However, I report to ourand in what ways is it missing the mark with re- chair and five other athlete leaders. And I have tospect to providing services to NGBs of both types? walk through this every time because, even though
there’s been standards put in place and audit comMR. KELLEHER: Thank you. I think it’s very chal- pliance and reporting portals, the reality is, athletes
lenging for the USOPC to meet all of our needs. still fear retaliation.
With fifty different NGBs, different sizes, different
funding sources, I think every NGB would sign up Lack of trust takes a really long time to get over, andfor more funding from the USOPC. I think that’s I don’t expect anyone to trust me when they firstpretty standard across the board. But I think, as meet me. They don’t know me. But having that extra
Sarah alluded to with audits, we are living under a layer on top where I can’t go, you know—no, we’re
set of standards now that we all have to meet, and independent, you know, similar to, like, a players’
I think those have been outlined to us. It’s been a association. I work directly for the athletes. I serve
challenge within the NGB world for sure, again at your pleasure. It’s just a really tough hurdle tobased on size and responsibilities that we all have get over. And even, you know, interactions withto face, but I think the support from the USOPC on members of the media, they, that’s not who I servethat and helping NGBs has been substantial.
but trying to even convince them for... I’ll give youa real example. Today, sitting here in front of you
Again, I think we look to the USOPC to lead. I think guys, when I was trying to convince our athletes to
we have a great collaborative working relationship fill out surveys going, ‘Please, make sure your voice
between the NGBs and the USOPC right now. Still is heard, make sure your voice is heard,’ I was stillwork to be done, for sure, but I think for large and getting emails going, ‘Hmm... are you sure this isn’t,
small NGBs they are made aware by the USOPC like, some sort of inside job? That you’re really rewhat resources are available and know what they porting all this back to USOPC staff?’ From retired
have to do outside of that to fulfill their mission and athletes. And, so, those are just some of the real-life
meet the needs of their athletes and well as their examples.
sport.
But it takes time. But, yeah, with that extra layer,
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Right. Thank you. I’ll now yield that lack of independence, it can just be really, reto Commissioner Cisnero Prevo.
ally hard, and I don’t fault the athletes, especiallygiven the history.
COMMISSIONER CISNEROS PREVO: Ms.

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

167

CO-CHAIR XIAO: Right. Thank you, Ms. Ram- can to raise funding for exactly that purpose.
sey. I’ll yield to Commissioner Schmitz for the nextquestion.
CO-CHAIR XIAO: I’ll yield to Commissioner
Hogshead for a question.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: Can you hear me?
COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: My question isMS. HIRSHLAND: I can.
for Ms. Ramsey. What are some of the biggest challenges that athletes face when it comes to participaCOMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: The organization tion in the arbitration process, whether it’s with the
you lead made it clear that one of its core values is U.S. Center for SafeSport or the USOPC or governto have an “athlete-first culture.” Among the nearly ing bodies or USADA? And what resources does
47,000 documents that USOPC submitted to this the Athletes’ Commission provide them in help
Commission are financial statements, which show during that process? Moreover, would you characan increase in athlete funding by approximate- terize them as sufficient to meet the athletes’ needs
ly 21% across all NGBs since 2019—an admirable in these areas?
reflection of this value, this “athlete-first culture.”
However, over the same period, publicly available MS. RAMSEY: No. So, you know, access to funds,
990 forms show that executive salaries at USOPC money, should never be a barrier to access to thehave increased by nearly 35%, and your own base administrative process. You know, there’s no… Besalary has grown 45%. Meanwhile, Operation Gold cause we’re not a separate legal entity, so we don’t
payments to athletes who medal in the Olympics or have in-house counsel that can go in and serve as
Paralympics have remained stagnant over the past advocates for athletes and legal counsel in theseeight years. Why haven’t these payouts or spending hearings. There’s the Ombuds office, which I thinkon athletes kept pace with the growth of executive tries to do as best a job as they can, but they can’t
compensation?
provide legal advice. They have to remain confidential and neutral, and so that the cost associatedMS. HIRSHLAND: Let me start by saying it is a with all the filing fees and all that type of stuff cangreat honor to serve in this role, and I know my serve as a real barrier to athletes even wanting tofellow executives at the organization feel that same go through the process. And then, on top of that, if
honor, and I recognize and am incredibly grateful it’s a SafeSport matter, and depending on what thefor the compensation the organization affords me issue at hand is, if you’ve ever had to relive trauma
for the honor to serve in this role. I don’t have the over and over and over again and you’re not providnumbers in front of me, but we made a significant ed maybe a case manager to help you through thatcommitment in the Op. Gold funding when we process, to prepare you for, you know, each timecreated equity and parity with Paralympians. So, I you have to engage with the Center, that in itself,
think it’s accurate to say that the individual amount so now you have a mental-health issue on top of
to an individual athlete—I don’t know what the his- it. And, depending on whether you meet the defitory of that change has been—but the organization nition for certain services that are provided by the
did make a significant commitment to create equi- USOPC, like the mental-health services, or if you
ty on Paralympians and increased our overall Op. can apply for one of the grants at the Ombuds ofGold funding significantly in doing that. And that’s fice to give some pro-bono counsel to you, you’re
an important thing.
kind of stuck. So, you’re out on your own. And, youknow, I can tell you I’ve had several conversations
That said, let me say very clearly, there is no question with athletes that bring issues to me, and I have to,that Team USA athletes deserve greater financial like, be like: ‘We can’t serve as your counsel. We canreward for their performances, and we’re working talk to you, and I can listen, but I can’t go in andextraordinarily hard, in our philanthropic commu- fight for you, because I’m not permitted to do that.’
nity predominantly, right now to do everything we168

Appendix I

So, I think, you know, money. You know, I think if
you’re an athlete and if you have to, you know, if you
get hit with a doping violation or if you want to filea Section 9 or other things, you’re really thinking
about, you know, how much can I afford, do I want
to go through this mentally, am I going to be retaliated against? I know there’s protections in place
now, but these are real thoughts. So, I think there
could really be some improvement in that space.
Thank you.

mation that comes forward, but we don’t know thatthat’s making our sports safer when we have an administrative closure that we then cannot act on as an
NGB—we are prohibited from acting on. I think thatis a key part of it, and it leaves us without information
again to try and make our sports as safe as they can be.
And that’s where it goes back to the collaboration of
how do we make sure we, the Center, all the NGBs aremaking sport as safe as possible for everyone.

The timing of that is also certainly a challenge. We recCO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. I’ll yield to Com- ognize the caseload of the Center and the number ofmissioner Korb for the next question.
participants they are trying to protect in youth sport. I
think 16 million was brought up. I think we’ve had difCOMMISSIONER KORB: Mr. Kelleher, congrat- ferent numbers. It’s a huge undertaking. But the timing
ulations, by the way. Women’s team, sled hockey, of it can, again, leave victims, leave plaintiffs, leave peojust brought home the gold at World’s. Congratu- ple involved, very, very frustrated if they don’t have any
lations on that.
communication on this. And, again, we as NGBs often
answer those phone calls from those victims to say—to
MR. KELLEHER: Thank you.
ask for information that we don’t have as well. So, those
are the bigger challenges that come along with that,
COMMISSIONER KORB: You spoke about the gov- particularly with administrative closures.
erning bodies’ relationship with SafeSport and yourhope for improved collaboration in the future. Can CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you all. I yield back toyou share your insights with us about SafeSport’s high Commissioner Hogshead for an additional question.
rate of administrative closures and the NGBs’ generalperceptions of the timing and the process behind such COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: My question
closures—and what additional burden, if any, does is for Sarah Hirshland. And so, Congress gave thethis place on the governing bodies?
USOPC the right to be able to use the rings and thewords and whatnot. The USOPC has given those
MR. KELLEHER: Yes, all of that. Thank you. To start rights away, say to colleges and universities, so you
with, the collaboration is important. I think we’ve had can imagine there might be a time when they gave
discussions with the Center and the Center’s leader- those rights away inappropriately. What boundarship that we are on the same team. We want to get ies should be around giving those rights away?
bad actors, these terrible situations, out of sport at alllevels. Again, to my point earlier with different shapes MS. HIRSHLAND: I’m not sure that I understandand sizes of NGBs, there are some that are dealing the question in terms of giving the rights away. We
with primarily elite athletes only, and there are others do form a number of partnerships with entities, inthat are dealing with athletes at all levels and a wide, cluding the NCAA you referenced, in which thewide group of constituents.
marks can be used with specific parameters. And,in that case in particular, the motivation of our reSo, in administrative closures we don’t receive any lationship with the NCAA is to promote the coninformation back from the Center as an NGB, other nection between collegiate athletes and Olympians
than that the case was administratively closed. That and Paralympians.
leaves us to either allow someone back into our sports
or keep someone out without knowledge of what We’ve heard many references today to that importhappened in the case. I understand some of the issues ant connection, and what we learned is that manywith the legal side of that and potential further infor- in America don’t understand the importance ofTranscript of the Commission’s Public Hearingthat connection and the importance of the collegiate system in helping to develop Olympic andParalympic athletes in those sports in particular.
And so, the motivation of the relationship is a partnership in which the NCAA institutions have theability to promote the Olympians and Paralympians that are training and developing on their respective campuses. And it’s an agreement that is,
you know, specific to the parameters around that
purpose intentionally.

169

MR. KELLEHER: There is a small team within the
USOPC that leads within the movement that all ofus have staff or people that are connected with. I
know they have regular communication to us regular groups. And again, it’s for different sports—what
does diversity mean?

Again, I come from a sport, hockey, that has been
struggling and continuing to work to try and be
more diverse with people of color, and we are being more intentional. Other sports have different
COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: What did the challenges with gender, with adaptive sports or disUSOPC get in return for using the marks?
abled sports. So we have, I think, solid leadershipfrom the USOPC on that. And then it really comes
MS. HIRSHLAND: Yeah, in the NCAA agree- to the different NGBs taking that and working with
ment—I’m not going to be super familiar with all those resources to try and make sure they adapt it
the terms, but the benefit was also promotion, ac- to their sports and to their environments and thecess to promoting the movement, promoting the needs within their sports, because we do have difOlympians and Paralympians in particular in those ferent challenges of diversity in different NGBs in
hometowns. One of our great challenges and im- different sports.
portant obligations and opportunities, frankly, isbuilding, you know, the Olympic and Paralympic CO-CHAIR XIAO: I’ll yield to my Co-Chair for an
fan base in this country. That is where the value of additional question.
those marks is derived, the people who know andlove it and support the movement. And so that pro- CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you. Ms. Ramsey,
motion is quite important to us, and so we have ac- since you accepted the Executive Director position
cess to and are actively promoting the Olympic and in 2020, has funding increased for the Team USA
Paralympic connection at things like the NCAA Athletes’ Commission?
Championships and events like that.
MS. RAMSEY: Per the M.O.U., I think the rolling
I’ll point to an example. This March at the Wom- increase is either 2% or 3%. I’ll have to verify thaten’s Final Four, the women’s basketball tourna- number each year. And then, say we’re under budment, we took a number of the women’s national get, we can roll over 10% of what we didn’t use. But
team Paralympic wheelchair-basketball players and other than that, we have not gotten an increase in
had an event during halftime of the women’s game our budget.
where we were showcasing the sport of wheelchairbasketball for the collegiate community. So, it is ex- CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you.
amples like that where there’s a cross-promotionalarrangement.
CO-CHAIR XIAO: I have a question for Ms.
Hirshland. Can you talk briefly, high level, about
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you, Ms. Hirshland.
USOPC’s strategy to invest in and develop thehigh-performance pathway for talented athletes,
I have a question for Mr. Kelleher. USOPC per- whether it’s directly or through the NGBs?
forms yearly audits of NGBs for participation of under-represented groups. So, how does the USOPC MS. HIRSHLAND: Sure. There is a process that’s
support NGBs with diversity, equity, inclusion out- actually being evaluated as we speak by a working
side of these audit processes?
group that consists of members of our team, members of the National Governing Body Council, and170

Appendix I

members of the Team USA Athletes’ Commission, that I’ve been the Chair of the NGB Council, had an
looking at the resource-allocation process, particu- open door with Sarah—a lot of positive conversalarly for high-performance funding.
tion—and a lot of her team that listens and joins into
NGB Council calls to share ideas and topics and hear
We enter into agreements with NGBs, affectionately, I directly from the NGBs. So, they’ve been responsive.
think, known as “high-performance agreements,” andthose agreements are partnerships with each sport Again, I think, you know, there’s work to be done.
focused on where the greatest needs may be and the Again, when you have, I think we have half of ourfunding around that that comes with the agreements. NGBs operate on a budget of $3 million or less. So,
We grant, you know, tens of millions of dollars annual- they’re limited with what they have. So, there are,ly across the various sports for that purpose. In those when it comes to audit and compliance, those areagreements, there can be any number of categories areas that we continue to work on as an NGB comand types of investments. Equipment is certainly one munity and the NGB Council in how we can helpof them, especially for those sports where equipment our smaller NGBs make sure they are compliant
is critically important. Coaching, retaining coaches. with all the requirements.
Athlete stipends is a part of that. Elite Athlete Health
Insurance and the health insurance provided to ath- CO-CHAIR XIAO: All right. Thank you. I’ll yield
letes is a part of that conversation. And then there are, to Commissioner Cisneros Prevo for an additional
obviously, significant travel expenses that often come question.
with the international-competition circuit and thequalifying process that goes with it.
COMMISSIONER CISNEROS PREVO: Hello,
this is a follow-up to Pat. I have a question about
So, there are a lot of different components to those your diversity efforts. For those NGBs that are comhigh-performance funds that are evaluated, and the mitted to bringing diversity in, what is being done
agreement is defined and entered into with each NGB, to parallel those efforts for those who are coming
and, frankly, they look quite different from one NGB into spaces that are predominantly white, predomito the next.
nantly male, to ensure safety and a sense of belonging for those that come from historically marginalCO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. I’ll yield back to my ized communities?
Co-Chair.
MR. KELLEHER: I believe we’re all attempting
CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Mr. Kelleher, NGBs have pro- to be more intentional about that. I think we’ve
vided feedback about the downstream administrative learned a lot over the past, I’d say, several years. I
challenges and costs of adhering to changing regu- believe the NGBs that I’ve spoken on these topics
lations from the USOPC. How has the USOPC re- are listening to make sure that we are more welsponded to the concerns of NGBs that may be strug- coming and more inclusive to make sure that we’regling to remain compliant year to year?
all providing equitable opportunities in our sports.
We’ve received great feedback from participants of
MR. KELLEHER: It’s an ongoing work in progress, I what works and what doesn’t work.
would say. We have developed great communicationon those topics. Again, I think we get into areas where So, I think one thing that I’ve seen with NGBs, andyou have NGBs with smaller staff sizes that have add- I know that we’ve done in hockey, is to be more ined components to their workload to try and manage, tentional to listen to the communities and try what
and they don’t have people or resource to do that.
we can to meet those needs. Challenging, for sure.
Work to be done, for sure. But listening to parThe USOPC, in some areas, has provided grants to ticipants has been, again, hugely beneficial to the
NGBs to help more on the operational side, and, I NGBs that I’ve had these conversations with.
will say, you know, we have had, over the three years

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. That will conclude
our questioning for this panel. I’ll yield back to my
Co-Chair. Oh, sorry—Commissioner Fitzgerald
Mosley has one additional question.

171

generate revenue—the predominant, as I said,
source of that revenue coming from sponsorshipand licensing and going toward funding the games
in Los Angeles.

COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY: I
was in the middle of writing it, and—anyway—Ms.
Hirshland, I have a question for you. When the U.S.
hosts the games, there’s a joint venture created between the host committee and the U.S. Olympic
and Paralympic Committee. And I’m just wondering how—if you could expand a little bit on howthat works and what benefits accrue to the USOPC
through that venture, how the revenues are split?
And do you see between now and 2028—and then,hopefully, a winter games after that—how those increases in revenues that we hope to see will accrue
to the athletes?

So, we don’t know yet what the bottom-line outcome of that will be, and it will likely be sometimein 2029 before we understand whether those L.A.
games have generated a surplus. I know certainly
the folks in L.A. hope that they don’t generate a
deficit, right? Their goal is to break even at worst
and to have a surplus at best. If there is a surplus,
the USOPC does stand to benefit from that surplus, again which would happen sometime in 2029
or beyond. Certainly, you know, the L.A. games in1984 set a wonderful standard, and we have reaped
incredible benefits of the endowment that was a result of the surplus in 1984. You know, time will tell
if we can expect that same kind of surplus. If weMS. HIRSHLAND: Yeah, it’s a bit of a complex do, our commitment is absolutely 100%—we will
structure. As you may know, the idea behind cap- continue to provide greater services and support toitalizing on the commercial rights of both the Team USA athletes with those funds. How that will
Olympic Committee and the organizing commit- be structured, what that surplus might look like, alltee, which is the LA28 Committee to Organize the very much to be determined.
Games,315 is to put those commercial rights into asingle entity and take them to the market in a uni- CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you.
fied fashion. That’s the concept and the philosophy
behind that. And so, the joint venture is essentially COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY:that it is an entity in which the commercial rights Thank you.
for sponsorship and licensing—and it’s not all, because it doesn’t incorporate broadcasting. But the CO-CHAIR XIAO: I yield back to Co-Chair Koller.
sponsorship and licensing rights for the two entities are put into the joint venture and then taken CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you, Han. I again
to the market to generate funding. And that fund- want to thank Ms. Hirshland, Ms. Ramsey, and Mr.
ing then predominantly funds the operations of the Kelleher for their participation today. We really apgames, along with some other revenue streams that preciate how seriously you’re all taking this process,will be generated through the LA28 organization which is a once-in-a-generation opportunity forindependently.
systemic reforms that can benefit everyone in the
movement.
And then, in the way this one was structured—
which is not, I don’t think, how they’re all done— We will now adjourn for a short break, after whichbut, in this instance, it was structured such that we will hear from witnesses on the very important
the USOPC was given essentially a fixed, guaran- issue of safety. The hearing will reconvene at 10:50
teed amount of revenue over the two quad-cycle, AM, and I ask that everyone be back and seated sothrough ‘28. And that fixed revenue is essentially that we may start promptly at that time.
a guaranteed payment against the rights that we’ve
put into the entity, and the entity will now go and[BREAK]315

The entity’s full legal name is the “Los Angeles Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games 2028.”

172

Appendix I

CO-CHAIR KOLLER: I’d like to call this hearing
back to order, and at this time I invite our next witness, Ms. Ju’Riese Colón, the CEO of the U.S. Center for SafeSport, to join us at the table.

ic sport culture quietly festered, where allegations
were ignored, even swept under the rug, and wherecountless individuals suffered abuse in silence without avenues for recourse.

In 2017, Congress gave SafeSport jurisdiction toprocess all claims of abuse and develop policies toprevent all forms of abuse and harassment, both
physical and emotional, within movement sports.
This was in the aftermath of horrific abuse cases coming to the public’s attention across several
sports, along with some governing bodies’ efforts
to minimize or even cover up abuse and their refusal to take action against abusers or even promptly
notify law enforcement. SafeSport was launched to
fix that broken system.

That changed forever when the U.S. Center for
SafeSport opened our doors in 2017. Since then,the Center has been holding individuals and organizations accountable. We’ve established consistent safety policies across every NGB, and we havededicated ourselves to developing and delivering
data-informed prevention education to millions
within the movement and beyond.

In the six years since we started this work, we’veseen true progress towards culture change. We began in 2017 with only four employees, and by the
We are very grateful to have its CEO with us to- end of that year we had received nearly 300 reports
day to share SafeSport’s view with the Commission, of abuse and misconduct, more than anyone imagand I’ll now yield five minutes to Ms. Colón to de- ined and definitely more than we were prepared toliver her prepared testimony.
handle.
MS. COLÓN: Can you hear me now? Alright. I’m
Ju’Riese Colón, CEO of the U.S. Center for SafeSport. Thank you so much for inviting us to participate in today’s hearing.

This year, with a staff of 122, we’ve received morethan 4,300 reports and are projected to hit 7,000 reports by the end of 2023. That represents a 2,000%
increase from 2017. These numbers show that,while not perfect, our process is working. Athletes
I’m glad to have the opportunity to discuss the inte- are coming forward with their stories, because theygral role the U.S. Center for SafeSport plays in the finally can. We are building awareness and trust
Olympic and Paralympic movement. The Center and demanding accountability.
was born out of need, a need for reform and a needfor accountability. A need for an independent au- SafeSport’s Centralized Disciplinary Database, orthority to finally put athlete safety and well-being the CDD, is just one way we demonstrate this. The
above medals and money.
CDD is the first-of-its-kind public resource listing
individuals who have been restricted or banned
Nothing like the U.S. Center for SafeSport has ever from sport. Today, the names of more than 1,900
existed before. There was no model, and there was individuals appear on this list, which any local
no template, and we have pioneered a shift to a saf- sports league, youth-serving organization, or emer sport culture over the past six years. Our efforts ployer can easily access on our website.
go beyond elite athletes. From the neighborhoodsoccer field to the podium in Paris, we are work- As mandatory reporters, the Center often collabing to ensure that everyone at every level of sport is orates with law enforcement to bring abusers tosafe, supported, and strengthened.
justice. In one example, the Center reported to law
enforcement allegations of sexual misconduct by
While there is a long road to truly making athlete an adult coach against a minor athlete. The agency
well-being the centerpiece of this nation’s sport cul- had not been aware of these crimes until SafeSportture, we cannot forget the long road behind us. It is reported them. The Center quickly suspended thea road that we will not retread, a road where tox- coach from sport, more than a year before his ar-Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

173

rest. He plead guilty to criminal charges and is cur- Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
rently serving a five-year sentence.
CO-CHAIR XIAO: And thank you, Ms. Colón, forAnd, while we seek accountability on behalf of ath- being here and for providing your testimony. My
letes, we are also accountable to them. As a neu- first question is how’s the requirement that the matral and independent organization not beholden’ to jority of SafeSport’s funding come from USOPC afany sport or individual, we recognize that criticism fected the Center independence and ability to be
is inherent to this work. Some of the criticism is a safety watchdog over USOPC and the governing
warranted, but some comes from individuals with a bodies? And, additionally, does the current funding
vested interest in setting back our efforts, whether arrangement pose any potential limits to the funcit comes from those sanctioned through our pro- tions of the Center for SafeSport’s operations?
cess or their allies or from a handful of sport national governing bodies who find prioritizing ath- MS. COLÓN: When the Empowering Olymlete safety costly and cumbersome.
pic and Paralympic Amateur Athletes Act passed
in 2020, it was a game changer for the Center for
I am not here to make excuses. We know that there SafeSport. When I joined in 2019, with a very limare participants in our response-and-resolution ited budget, we did not know where we were getprocess who felt it was not trauma-informed, that ting our funding, and so having funding that wasthere was poor communication, or it simply took secured through federal law annually was—it gave
too long. To them I say: we are working every day us the funds necessary that we needed to actually
to prioritize athlete safety, and the Center is deeply build out the organization. Not only were we ablecommitted to continuous quality improvement.
to hire the staff that we needed at the time, but wewere also able to invest in technology solutions to
We are beginning to see feedback on our process help support NGBs and athletes, were able to deand pledge to make improvements based on what velop additional education resources, and really
we learn. We have ongoing trauma-informed train- build up the organization to what I think is what
ing for our team and have dedicated staff and re- people really wanted to be on day one.
sources to help participants understand our process. We’re actively reviewing how we can shorten You know, it is interesting because when that
resolution times, provide more information to passed it was a great day, but we quickly realized
NGBs, particularly around administrative closures, that, without inflationary adjustment and then just,and solicit additional resources to grow our inves- you know, basing the dollar amount on the caseload
tigative staff. More importantly, our door is open that we had in 2019, those funds quickly were spent.
to those who want to help us improve. We are ded- And so, right now, we are looking for additional
icated to strengthening what we’ve built, making ways to identify more funding to help support the
the Center better and more accessible to athletes organization’s growth, because, you know, no one
throughout the country.
could have imagined that we would see 7,000 reports in a year, and the funding levels were deterThe kind of culture change that we’re leading does mined on something on numbers that were put tonot come easy, and it is truly a team effort. It’s going gether years ago. And so, it is something that we’reto take all of us—center, athletes, coaches, officials, consciously looking at and trying to solve.
parents, NGBs—working together to build a future
where inclusive and safe sport environments are CO-CHAIR XIAO: I will yield to Commissioner
commonplace; where athletes, coaches, and par- Fitzgerald Mosley for a question.
ents understand how to recognize, report, and respond to grooming and abuse; and where the entire COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY:
athletic community stands together to safeguard Thank you, Ms. Colón. What steps, if any, has SafeSathletes above all else.
port taken to increase the awareness of its Centralized174

Appendix I

Disciplinary Database, to keep it updated, to improve
its safety trainings, and to make it more widely accessible to people, particularly, you know, maybe througha Google search? And then, secondly, why—my understanding is that victims aren’t able to share the findings
related to their case through SafeSport, and I’m wondering why and if there could be a change to that?

When it comes to sharing information, well yourquestion is, what information can athletes sharewhen they come to the Center?

The Centralized Disciplinary Database is actually the
only piece of our website that is updated every day, andso every time we suspend or ban someone or we release a suspension or a ban—well not a ban, but a suspension—that information is updated on our website,
and that happens at least once a day. And so, right now,
we are actually in the process of putting together a national brand campaign to focus specifically on the Centralized Disciplinary Database, because it is a resourcethat we feel is under-utilized and that people, one, don’tknow that it is there and, you know, is incredibly useful
to make decisions when you are looking for your kids’
next coach.

MS. COLÓN: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD
About their particular case, yes.

MOSLEY:

MS. COLÓN: Yeah, so athletes are welcome to
MS. COLÓN: Just want to get all parts of your ques- share their stories. We don’t get in the way of that.
tions written down.
In fact, we encourage that, because they’re theirstories to tell.
COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY: So,
two parts: the Centralized Disciplinary Database, how We do, once we go through an investigation, there
is it updated, how we improve the safety trainings, and are some things that we ask particularly responthen how can we make it more viably accessible to peo- dents not to share, oftentimes just specific details
ple in general?
that are actually included in an investigative report.
As you can imagine, if you were a claimant in our
MS. COLÓN: Sure.
process and the respondent shared certain information and—or maybe you were one claimant out
COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY: And of five—not everyone’s ready to share information
then the second question about victims being able to at their own, you know, at their own pace. And so,share their findings.
we don’t stop people from doing that, but we do askthat certain documents not be shared publicly.
MS. COLÓN: Sure. So, I’ll start with the Centralized
Disciplinary Database. And so, over the past sever- COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY: I
al years, we’ve invested a lot, one, in our online pres- just had one more, and that is with 7,000 cases, isence, and so that started with SEO work, right, to make there a way to differentiate—or is there a need tosure that people could actually find us online. One of say there’s certain cases that belong in a certain…
the most common issues, I think, that the public has,particularly athletes, is that people didn’t know who we COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: Triage?
were, and so we took a lot of time and investment inmaking sure that, one, you can find us, but also that the COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY:
resources available on our website were current and up Yeah, and there’s others that you spend more reto date.
sources on?

COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY: Do
you do that? Because I understand it’s a huge volume, and the budget may not be able to escalate in
the same way.
MS. COLÓN: Yeah, the volume is a lot, and, youknow, right now... Last year we ended our year, youknow, roughly at 5,500 reports, which was our alltime high. And every year I tell people ‘We’re at our
all-time high’ every quarter, every year, and so it’s
important for us to be able to get to the most egre-

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

gious cases, and those that are when athletes are inharm’s way.
So, you know, because the Center does not have astatute of limitations, we will continue to get reports from cases, or from allegations of abuse that
happened ten, twenty, thirty, forty years ago, andwe’ll investigate those, but we do have to do a certain level of triaging. And so, we have an internal
rubric that takes a look at complexity and severity
to be able to make those decisions as we are making
cases through.
Now, one of the great things about the funding that
we received was that we were able to increase thesize of our investigative staff, and, so as of today,
we’ve got over sixty people internally dedicatedto investigating allegations of abuse and misconduct. And so, you know, we’re getting faster everyday. But, you know, cases around emotional andphysical misconduct take a lot more time and have
proved to be a lot more complicated than we initially thought walking into this.
And we have cases, particularly in the emotional
and physical abuse side, that have taken years because we continue to get more claimants or more
information is presented or there may be criminal
charges that are tied to it, and so there’s a lot of nuance to it. But, it is a… We have to be able to, kindof, take a look at cases in that way in order to makesure we’re getting to athletes quickly and as efficiently as possible.
COMMISSIONER
Thank you.

FITZGERALD

MS. COLÓN: Of course.

MOSLEY:

175

COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: As you stated, youhave a number of cases grown—I think you said
you started with 300 reports a year and now you’re
up to 7,000 a year.
MS. COLÓN: It’s a lot.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: Are those numbers correct?
MS. COLÓN: Unfortunately, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: Wow. And thenyou just mentioned you have emotional-abuse cases that sometime takes years to resolve? What generally, in the terms of resolution of these cases ... I
know you can’t ... Some take longer than others…
MS. COLÓN: They do.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: But is there an average time from receipt of an allegation to closureof a case?
MS. COLÓN: Yeah, it really depends, right, because, one, we’ve got... We’re taking a look at sexual-, physical-, and emotional-misconduct cases.
Some of them are relatively simple for us to, kind of,
get through. Some of them we decline jurisdiction
back to NGBs for them to handle, because they’rebetter handled on the ground. Others, we will workwith law enforcement and sometimes beyond—andholds from law enforcement for years until charges
can be, you know, pressed or a trial might be completed—so it’s hard to just give you, like, this is exactly the number.

I will say that the resolution times have lessened
over the years. There was a moment in time when
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. I’ll yield to Com- I started, back in 2019, where our backlog was tremissioner Schmitz.
mendous, and that was the first thing—and reallythe only thing—that I heard walking in the door,
COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: I’m sorry. Ms. that, you know, SafeSport takes way too long toColón, can you explain the trend in resolution time complete these cases and, at that point, didn’t havefor cases in the past few years?
a lot of staff. And so, you know, to Ms. Mosley’squestion, we had to triage quite a bit of—quite aMS. COLÓN: Sure.
few cases.

176

Appendix I

And so, right now, while that number is trending downward, we have, you know, we don’t havea backlog, which is great. At the rate that we areseeing more reports coming in, you know, I thinkthat we are, kind of, staring down a barrel right now
with, like, what’s going to happen next?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: Thank you.
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. I’ll yield to Commissioner Moses.

we’re just online a lot more. And we started to see
more just aggressive behavior online, and athletes
have been, you know, really at the forefront of that,whether it’s in matches or their coaching. It’s gotten
pretty bad.
And so, one of the things that we focused on is, one,trying to get a better understanding of what thelandscape is. So, for the last six years we’ve takena close look at sexual-abuse misconduct and havegotten fairly good at understanding, you know, howthat presents itself, most of the time, in sport. What
we didn’t know was how deep emotional and physical abuse went, and we also didn’t know and didn’t
realize at the time the grayness of what that looks
like—and to be able to help people understand anddiscern that, when they see it in public, how they
are to cope with it. And so, you know, as we havelearned more, particularly through data collection
and through the investigative reports that we have,
we’ve also been able to pour that into our educational content to, one, not only help athletes understand what emotional abuse look like and, youknow, where mental health kind of fits into all of
that, but also to help bystanders understand as well.

COMMISSIONER MOSES: Good morning, Ms.
Colón. As a member of USADA, at one point we
had to take the SafeSport certification online, all
the board members, and it was quite eye-opening
to me. And it took, just to, kind of, take everythingaway from all the sexual exploitation and whatnot
that you have to deal with, this concerns more dayto-day interactions between coaches and conductthat may not reach a level where you have to start
an investigation, such as bullying, name-calling,shaming, blaming, withholding of participation,
which was something that I had never thought of—turning athletes against each other and so forth.
Maybe you could explain to the panel a little bit
more about that, because I think that’s one of the One of the, I think, bright spots that I’ve seen parfunctions that you have that doesn’t really get cov- ticularly with our investigations—in our world, theered a lot.
Center for SafeSport, you know, we don’t get a lotof bright spots—but what we have seen is that there
One case that I came across was—I was on a pod- are more people coming forward about policy viocast with two women from track and field about lation, there are more people coming forward bewomen’s mental health and dealing with that, and fore things escalate to that. There are more people
during the podcast there was a gentleman who kept stepping in, as you did, to correct and call out bebarging in online and typing, blaming them for havior, and I think that that is a symbol of a culture
claiming that they were taking drugs and blaming change. But, certainly, we’ve got a long, long way tothem and that they were weak and so forth. And I go, because it runs deep.
had to get online—they put me online live—and I
had to chew this guy out. And one of the questions COMMISSIONER MOSES: Thank you. I yield tothat I asked him, “Are you a coach? Because if you, Commissioner Cohen.
if you are, you know, you’re in violation of the rules
at this point right now.” So, maybe you can explain COMMISSIONER COHEN: Thank you very
that function to the panel.
much for your comments, and I want to applaud
you for all the work that you’re doing in resolution,
MS. COLÓN: Sure. So, you know, we’ve seen an and that’s obviously a very important step in the
uptick in emotional abuse, particularly online, since process. What I’m really curious about is—the ultiwe came out of the pandemic really. And, you know, mate goal is to prevent these incidents from occurI think we can attribute that just in our daily lives, ring before they happen. And so, what are the steps

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearingthat the Center is taking, from a risk-management
standpoint, to ensure that these kinds of incidents
quit happening?
MS. COLÓN: Sure. A couple of things. First andforemost, you know, when we were opened one ofour biggest lifts at the time was to develop child-safety policies that could be implemented across the entire Olympic and Paralympic movement. When we
opened our doors, it just, it wasn’t there. There werepolicies. They were not consistent, and so over theyears we’ve been able to not only implement thosepolicies but revise them continuously to make improvements and really help NGBs, local affiliated organizations, one, understand what the rules are but
also to implement them.

177

CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Commissioner Hogshead, I
just want to remind you to push your button.
COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: Yeah, oh, thankyou. To repeat: so, the Commission is interested
in whether you and the U.S. Center for SafeSport
would be open to a rule that has to do with the due
process that all respondents are owed and requiringthem to participate in the investigation prior to thehearing so that, you know… In appellate law you
can only bring up something that has been brought
up and addressed, right? And then, for the hearing,to have something brand new brought up for the
first time—would the Center, and you, be amenable
to a change in policy that would require respondents to participate in the investigation?

A big part of understanding that, of course, is education. And so, in addition to the SafeSport core course
and the subsequent refreshers that we offer online,
the Center has released over thirteen modules thatyou can take online that focus on a number of things,
everything from emotional- and physical-abuse misconduct to athletes with disabilities, medical professionals, bullying prevention, things for parents.
The list really goes on, because we do think that ourunique position in this movement, to truly understand how abuse presents itself, gives us the ability todevelop really interesting and relevant content that’srooted in data and information to help people prevent this. Because, at the end of the day, you know,
we’re all trying to work ourselves out of a job, right?

MS. COLÓN: So, we’re open to ongoing policychanges, right? I think the arbitration process isprobably one of the stickiest pieces of what we haveto deal with on the SafeSport side. And so, when it
comes to changing policy, whether that is a requirement for respondents to participate or, you know,
how the arbitration hearings are held, we’re open to
exploring what else it could look like.

CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. Commissioner
Hogshead has the next question, so I’ll yield to her.

COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: And one follow-up question that has nothing to do with myearlier question.

You know, I think one of the great things about being an organization on the ground level is that you
get to try a bunch of stuff, right? We don’t have tostick to what we’ve done for the last five years or
what people did ten years ago, you know. We’re able
to chart our own path. And so, one of the things
that we’re looking at internally right now is, you
We don’t want to exist in a world where the Center know, on all the processes, right, from the momentfor SafeSport has to. Like, this is our—everything that we pick up the phone all the way through arthat we have to focus on forever. We want to get to bitration. And so, we’re certainly open to suggesthis place where we’re preventing it and that we are tions and recommendations and process changes
making people so aware about how to recognize, to make that process easier, right—if there is such a
how to respond, how to report, that that becomes thing as an easier process. To make it just more andthe focus instead of the very terrible investigations more efficient for athletes, because at the end of thethat we have to do every day.
day we’re here to serve them.

COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: Yeah, I waswondering if the U.S. Center for SafeSport would be
open to a due process…

MS. COLÓN: Sure.

178

Appendix I

COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: What percentage of that 7,000—what percentage are coach-athlete? What percentage are athlete-athlete? And
what percentage are minor athletes versus adultathletes on who’s getting harmed?

MS. COLÓN: Well, first I’ll say that the cases, wedon’t get a lot of cases where people, that we find thatpeople lie when it comes to abuse. So, I think that’s
one, like, sort of, common misconception when it
comes to abuse allegations.

MS. COLÓN: At the risk of me citing the wrong
number, I can certainly gather that for you. But anecdotally, I can tell you that the majority of the cases that we see are going to be coach-athlete.

The second piece is that, you know, when we go
through our investigative process, we’re looking at a lotof different things. We’re talking to claimants. We’retalking to witnesses. And so, on the sexual-abuse side,
you know, it’s a little bit easier to, sort of, understand
COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: Okay.
the facts. On the emotional side, it’s very, very gray,and, you know, often times when you have an emoMS. COLÓN: We are seeing more athlete-on-ath- tional-abuse case it will come down to how the perlete cases though, particularly when it comes to son felt, and I don’t know if we can ever say that that’s
emotional abuse. And we certainly see a fair amount unsubstantiated or substantiated because that’s howof minor athletes as well. And one of the things that someone feels. And so, you know, I don’t have a numwe are internally reviewing at the moment is, you ber for you in that respect, because that is—it’s deeply,
know, how we move minor athletes through our deeply personal. I will say that, you know, a significant
system as well, because it takes a different level of number of our cases do go through investigation andcare sometimes.
result in findings. I have our annual report here that
I can certainly share with you, and, you know, again
COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: Okay. Can you 1,900 people are on our Centralized Disciplinary Database, so I think that is certainly significant.
provide that data to the Commission?
And then with the completions of violations, I want to
say it was upwards of, like, 25% that have gone throughthe entire investigative process where we have found
COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: Thank you.
a violation. I think it’s important to note that the CenCO-CHAIR XIAO: For a last question for, Ms. ter for SafeSport operates not only on the SafeSport
Code that we’ve developed, but we also take a very
Colón, I’ll yield to Commissioner Schmitz.
close look at laws and policies that were in place at the
COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: So, when I was the time of the alleged incident. And, unfortunately, there
Inspector General at the Pentagon, I was very sur- weren’t always policies to go off of. And so, when you
prised when I took over the job to find out that of take a look at the policies that did or did not exist in
all of our hotline allegations that came in—and we 1975 versus policies that exist today, they’re quite difhad literally the largest hotline in the world—that I ferent, and so it’s hard to, kind of, quantify and put
was surprised to learn that only 20% of the allega- those sort of things in the same bucket.
tions that actually came in were substantiated. In
other words, 80% either weren’t worth investigat- CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. I yield back to Coing or were unsubstantiated or non-substantiat- Chair Koller.
ed. What percentage of these 7,000 cases you getin, what percentage result in a substantiation—in CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you, Ms. Colón, forother words: a finding of a valid allegation? In other sharing your testimony and answering our questions.
words, an abuse as opposed to whatever?
We sincerely appreciate you being here. Now, I will invite our next three witnesses to come to the table.
MS. COLÓN: Yeah.316

316

N.B.: Following the hearing, and after further requests by the Commission, the U.S. Center for SafeSport declined to provide this data.

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

We have heard from SafeSport, and now we will
have an opportunity to hear from a survivor andadvocate, from a governing-body SafeSport coordinator with on-the-ground experience, and a distinguished law professor specializing in child protection. Grace French is the President and founderof The Army of Survivors, which works to raisethe voices of those who survived sexual assault in
sports and fight for better policies to keep participants safe. And I know—Ms. French, I know you
have a flight to catch, so if you do have to slip outof this panel early, we certainly understand. Scott
Gray is Vice President and SafeSport Coordinatorfor Minnesota Hockey, who has worked to help establish new safety policies and protocols for U.S.A.
Hockey as a member of its SafeSport taskforce. We
are also joined by Marci Hamilton, the founder and
CEO of Child USA and the Fells Institute of Government Professor of Practice and a resident Senior
Fellow in the Program for Research on Religion
at the University of Pennsylvania. Ms. French, Mr.
Gray, and Professor Hamilton, welcome. I’ll now
yield each of you five minutes to share your prepared testimony.317
MS. FRENCH: Thank you so much for inviting me
to speak today. My name is Grace French, and I am
the founder and President of the 501(c)(3) nonprofit The Army of Survivors. We create awareness, accountability, and transparency around the issue ofabuse in sport through our pillars of advocacy, education, and resources. But how did I get here? I often
wonder about this when I find myself in situations
like these. I began doing this work in 2018 when I
came forward about the abuse that I had experienced
at the hands of the now infamous and imprisoned
U.S.A. Gymnastics and Michigan State University
doctor. I was abused from the ages of twelve to nineteen. It was only after I came forward that I foundout that the first report of his abuse was in 1997,
when I was two years old. I did not know as a young
athlete how vulnerable I was to abuse. Athletes faceextreme vulnerability to sexual abuse because of
their complex and sometimes isolating schedules,
the intimate nature of coaching and development ofsporting skills, increased physical care and scrutiny,
the pressures and stressors of athletic competition,
317

179

as well as concerns about career opportunities in a
finite timeframe.
I was focused on being the best athlete that I could
and trusting the coaches, doctors, and staff that supported me. Coming forward with my story changed
my life in multiple ways, but what I failed to predict was that institutions that I had trusted with mysafety failed to be transparent or trauma-informed,
and then there was no support from my sport orsports-connected organizations, including the
U.S. Center for SafeSport. I realized I had to be achange-agent of myself. Through all of this trauma
and re-traumatization, the silver lining was that I became a part of a group of like-minded people.
In the summer of 2018, forty of us came together tocreate a shared vision for the future, a world where
athletes can train and compete without violence, because we knew that we were not alone in our experience—and, from that vision, The Army of Survivors(TAOS) was formed to turn our pain to power. Since
then, our organization has expanded rapidly, and wehave met so many survivors of abuse in sport acrossthe nation and the world—most recently with theirexperiences with the U.S. Center for SafeSport investigative processes.
Starting in May 2022, TAOS conducted a series ofinterviews with diverse athletes across several different sports, genders, ages, and levels of competition
regarding their experiences with reporting sexualassault. All of these survivors tried to work through
SafeSport’s process. We’ve gathered their testimony
and found some common, very disturbing themes.
Of most concern to me is the re-traumatization thatsurvivors of sexual abuse have been subject to in
the SafeSport process. Survivors have felt ignored,silenced through do-not-disclose agreements, hadinvestigations that lingered for years, and had no notice of actions taken by the Center that could directly put them at risk of retaliation, and have not been
supported through a trauma-informed approach.
We need to also center strategies to prevent theseabuses in the first place that consider the specificand coercive control tactics that exist uniquely in the
sports world. SafeSport has not been a support orplace of trust for athletes up to this point.

Extended written testimony submitted by Grace French appears following the live transcript on p. 230.

180

Appendix I

The survivors we talked to were all frustrated withthe process and felt there was no transparency, nor
was there good communication about their cases
and investigations. This extends to SafeSport’s reputation in the sports world beyond. We have heardthat coaches and families are concerned that thetraining they provided was not tailored to each
sport and did not include prevention, a prevention approach, or a trauma-informed lens. SafeSport has not engaged with organizations like The
Army of Survivors or others to bring meaningful
trauma-informed approaches to their work andphilosophy. We have tried to open communication
channels several times, only to be largely ignored.
Further, SafeSport’s arbitrary closing of cases withno further information given to survivors, and theirholding jurisdiction of cases they administratively
closed, which prevents non-governmental sports
organizations from investigating and providing accountability and intervention, are just further examples of how SafeSport’s systems re-traumatize
and do harm.
TAOS’s mission is to prevent what happened to me
from happening to others, to support the healingof survivors like me, to hold institutions that failed
children accountable. We see SafeSport as one ofthose institutions that is critical in the response topreventing abuse, and we know there are necessarychanges that SafeSport must take. New legislationthat is soon to be introduced, the Safer Sports for
Athletes Act of 2023, championed by Representative Deborah Ross, is intended to create safer sports
for athletes through key revisions that would improve the reporting process for athlete survivors,
revise training guidelines, and focus some efforts
and resources on prevention strategies, somethingthat appears to be willfully ignored by the Center.
I’d ask that the Commission’s recommendations toCongress consider supporting that legislation as itgets introduced.
As an athlete- and athlete-survivor-founded and ledorganization, The Army of Survivors will continue
to work toward a safer future for athletes. We hopethat, through your leadership, policy change canbe trauma-informed and survivor-centered. Thankyou for your time.

CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you, Ms. French. Mr.
Gray.
MR. GRAY: Good morning. I’d first like to thankthe Commission for the opportunity to participate in providing experiences and commentary inthe very important topic of safety in sports, with aparticular focus on protecting minor athletes fromabuse and misconduct.
I’m a volunteer primarily in the sport of hockey,
where we have a large grassroots membership ofover 650,000 participants. In Minnesota, where I’m
from, U.S.A. Hockey has nearly 60,000 players, andI’ve been involved actively with U.S.A. Hockey’s
SafeSport program since its inception in 2012. And,
as you’re aware, the original creation of the SafeSport policies and programs by the then-UnitedStates Olympic Committee and national governing
bodies has had a tremendous impact in benefiting
athletes by creating safer environments. These programs not only created awareness in educational
programming but also provided systems for reporting and adjudication, with the goal of removing bad
actors and keeping the misconduct from reoccurring.
In between 2012 and 2017, each NGB was responsible for conducting its own SafeSport program, and,while during that time we all know there were somereally horrible cases of misconduct that did occur,for the most part, the endeavor was successful. I
believe the creation of the U.S. Center for SafeSport was a necessary and important step in assisting us to appropriately respond to these challenges.
From the start, the driving forces behind creating
the Center were the need for the most serious cases
to be investigated and resolved by an independent
third party rather than the NGBs—and to have thatthird party include the necessary capability and expertise. Although I continue to strongly believe that
the Center is an integral part of the safety landscape,I also believe that substantive changes in its practices and procedures must occur to improve our ability to respond to and resolve misconduct in a fair
and timely fashion with all aspects of due processtaken into consideration. Specifically, I would liketo highlight three areas that I think are in need of

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

adjustment that I believe would not only improve
athlete safety but also create a more-timely and justoutcome for those parties involved.

181

Center works more collaboratively with the NGBs
to make sport better and, jointly, providing safe environments for sports and athletes, then all would
benefit. In conclusion, I believe your Commission
Number one, the Center’s response—and it’s been can provide impact for positive recommendations
discussed—the Center’s response-and-resolution to greatly improve the current approach, resulting
process is far too slow. Cases tend to languish in in a far more efficient responsive system to combat
its system, often taking over a year, or even longer, abuse and misconduct in sports. Thank you.
to result in a determination. I believe the Center
should narrow the scope of the cases it accepts CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you, Mr. Gray. Projurisdiction over and focus its work on cases that fessor Hamilton.318
involve mandatory reports to law enforcement orChild Protective Services. When the Center takes MS. HAMILTON: Co-Chair, Koller and Xiao andso long, participants in local programs can be sub- commissioners, I’d like to thank you for inviting me
jected to continued misconduct by the respondent today to speak about…
in those cases. The less-serious cases do not requireintervention by the Center, and most NGBs are ca- CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Professor Hamilton, I justpable of handling the less-serious cases in a prompt want to make sure your microphone is on, so everyfashion and, in many cases, can and should be han- one… There we go. Thank you.
dled by the coach or the local program leadership.
MS. HAMILTON: I’ll start over. Okay. Co-Chair,
Number two, the vast majority of cases the Cen- Koller, Xiao, and commissioners—thank you forter takes jurisdiction over result in a determining opportunity to speak today about Child USA’s asof administration closure, meaning the Center has sessment of the SafeSport center, which was formed
determined that no action should be taken. NGBs to secure the safety primarily of athletes from sexuare made aware of this result but are not allowed al misconduct and abuse.
to learn the underlying facts of the initial complaint. Or, if we were already aware, the Center’s By way of introduction, I am the founder and CEO
exclusive jurisdiction prohibits NGBs from taking of Child USA, and a professor of practice in Poany action on their own. For the most part, all of litical Science at the University of Pennsylvania. I
these cases were reported in good faith, and with started Child USA in 2016, building on my work as
legitimate concerns by the people reporting, and I a law professor on child sex abuse. It is a nonprofit,
believe they deserve a more-thorough and diligent interdisciplinary think-tank, which pairs legal analreview. I believe that if the Center administratively ysis and social science. We are the only entity to docloses a case it should cede jurisdiction to the rele- an independent case study by the leading experts
vant NGB for its own review and ability to respond in the country on the Larry Nassar issues. Whatto and resolve the matter in an appropriate manner. we found was that every institution that could have
The high rate of administrative closure erodes con- protected those girls did not. I urge you to read it atfidence among our constituents to the extent that childusa.org. There is a nationwide epidemic of sex
concerned participants and parents don’t want to abuse in sports, causing potentially lifelong dammake a report to the Center, because they feel noth- age to victims that requires the Olympic system tofocus on prevention as well as effective removal ofing ever happens.
offending coaches.
And, number three, we need to improve the cooperation and relationship between the Center and the At least 20% of girls and 8% of boys will be sexually
NGBs. While the Center must remain independent abused by the age of eighteen in the United States.
in its investigatory function, I believe that if the Youth sex abuse occurs across all social strata and318

Extended written testimony submitted by Marci Hamilton appears following the live transcript on p. 232.

182

Appendix I

institutions, including athletic. Athletics is not distinctive. It is just part of the culture phenomenon.
Many victims need decades to come forward, as
was shown by our extensive study of the Boy Scouts,
learning that the vast majority came forward in
adulthood, and over half came forward after age fifty. That is the reality of child sex abuse and youngadult sex abuse. For that reason, I do not expect thereports to SafeSport to go down. I think 7,000 is
a very small number, given the millions of athletes.
I expect it to go up, and I expect the need for aneffective, preventive system to be of the highest priority. Children right now are being sexually abusedin the Olympic system when it could be prevented.
We did a survey of the Nassar survivors. We foundthat 100% had no knowledge of where to report sex
abuse—100%; 22% said no effort was made to makeany changes in response to their report; 27% said
they didn’t want to report because they expected
repercussions.

Private arbitration for youth sex-abuse claims plays
into the hands of perpetrators and the institutions
that cover up for them. It disables victims’ voices
and leaves future athletes vulnerable to preventable sexual abuse. Numerous coaches that SafeSport would have removed were permitted to return coaching following arbitration without any
official public record of the claims made against
them. At the same time, the USOPC was settling
lawsuits involving the same perpetrators. Athletes
and parents deserve much better. Child USA recommends elimination of the private and opaquearbitration process and replacement with an expert
panel, whose members are drawn from a pool of
trauma-informed medical, psychological, and legal
experts in the field. Otherwise, the poison will continue to circulate within the Olympic system, and if
you don’t let the poison out it cannot be solved.

Finally, very quickly, it’s widely known that SafeSport’s Board of Directors and its employees, too
The problem, in our view, is that SafeSport has a many are coming from the defense side. That is not
faulty investigative system and an opaque process what SafeSport is supposed to be. It’s supposed tothrough private arbitration, which is disfavoring the be for the athletes who’ve been abused. It is not supvictims, which are the ones supposed to be helped, posed to be a judicial proceeding. We highly recomand it’s also misleading the public. The SafeSport mend that SafeSport look very carefully at who it’ssystem is supposed to have exclusive jurisdiction hiring and who it’s putting on its Board of Directors
over these issues. It is supposed to be about ath- and make sure that they are victim-centered, traulete well-being. As we all know, it’s been limited ma-trained, and that is the only way that the Olymbecause of the intense need to sexual-abuse cases.
pic system is going to be able to—not put this behindthem but to—come to terms with the reality so many
The SafeSport process is two-fold. The Center in- organizations are facing. Thank you.
vestigates the claim, it reaches a conclusion or
recommends sanctions as needed. If sanctions CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you to our witnesses. I’ll
are assigned, the accused party can appeal, which begin the question by recognizing Commissioner
triggers a private-merit arbitration hearing where Cisneros Prevo.
the accused and the Center presents evidence toan arbitrator who is not required to have any ex- COMMISSIONER CISNEROS PREVO: This isperience or training in handling sexual-abuse cases, to Ms. French. I know you have a flight to catch, so
and which has routinely resulted in re-traumati- thank you for your testimony. Congress gave SafeSzation of the victims and reversal of well-founded port jurisdiction over abuse cases in 2017, the year
claims. Nearly half—42%—of the appealed SafeS- before you courageously came forward as a survivor.
port decisions come out unfavorable to the victim. In your testimony you said that SafeSport did not
When the athlete comes forward, they are guaran- protect you. You also described trauma-informed
teed nothing. They are often told it is a confidential practices recognizing both the impact of trauma andprocess, they may not talk to anybody, and they are preventing re-traumatization. Do you believe SafeSgiven no report.
port employs trauma-informed practices, and, if not,how can SafeSport better implement such practices?

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

183

MS. FRENCH: Thank you so much for your question. The short answer is no, I do not believe they
employ trauma-informed practices because of theexperiences I’ve heard from survivors who are currently going through the process. I, myself, did notreport to SafeSport. I think there is opportunity forthem to continue to support athletes who comeforward no matter what. With that said, survivors
we’ve heard have talked about feeling like SafeSport
wasn’t able to communicate when they were moving their case forward, they didn’t understand what
the process looked like, and there was a loss of trust
throughout that process.

become very highly reticulated. It is now quite
clear. It’s settled how trauma actually operates on
the victims. It operates in both psychological-emotional and physical ways. There’s a higher incidenceof MS319 among female victims of rape than there
is among the general population. So, the trauma
has to be part of what the person brings, the understanding of that trauma, to be able to deal withthese issues. It is my view that, and it’s actuallyChild USA’s view, that if you have people who arehearing child sex-abuse cases or youth-adult, because there’s—we don’t view any difference up to
age twenty-five—if you have those cases decided bysomeone who is not well-trained in trauma, they
An example that I’ve been given permission to use are going to inevitably re-traumatize the victim andis that an athlete who was going through the SafeS- discount their claims.
port process reported suicidal ideation to the U.S.
Center for SafeSport. The U.S. Center for SafeSport It’s just common. This is how it happens, right? So,
responded in one email giving him a 1-800 number we analyze and we track all the major institutions
and then promptly closed his case. There was no that have had child sex-abuse problems—the Cathfollow up from the U.S. Center for SafeSport. There olic Church, Southern Baptists, Penn State, Michiwas nothing after that. This is a matter of life or gan, all of these entities—and what you find is thatdeath for many of the survivors who are reporting the instinct is always to protect the institution andto the U.S. Center for SafeSport, and this re-victim- the person. Always. We prefer and protect adults,
ization that we’ve heard from almost all athletes and that the victims get pushed aside, the change
we’ve talked to has been incredibly harmful to their factor is if you understand the trauma and how it
mental and physical health. Thank you.
operates, and so if you have a victim who comesin and they are severely drug-addicted, they’re not
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. I’d next like to yield making a claim out of the addiction. The addiction
to Commissioner Schmitz.
is likely coming out of the abuse.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: Professor Hamil- CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. I’ll yield to Comton, in a related question, can you speak some more missioner Korb.
about why you think it’s important for SafeSport to
COMMISSIONER KORB: Thank you. Ms. French,hire, I think you were referring to the arbitrators?
thank you again for being here today. Can you deMS. HAMILTON: No. No. I was referring to…
scribe any jurisdictional conflicts or confusion
you’ve been made aware of from athletes regardCOMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: …investigators ing SafeSport? I know you mentioned that. Whatand arbitrators?
do you hear from the athlete community and fromsurvivors who have participated in SafeSport’s proMS. HAMILTON: …and board members.
cess?
COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: …with a back- MS. FRENCH: Thank you for your question. I
ground specifically in child sexual-abuse trauma.
think athletes that we’ve heard from are extremely confused about where to report first. They do
MS. HAMILTON: So, the science of trauma has not understand who has jurisdiction, and when,319

MS = Multiple Sclerosis.

184

Appendix I

and I’ve heard from several athletes that they believe the U.S. Center for SafeSport is only for sexual
abuse, so if they’re experiencing physical or emotional abuse they feel as if they don’t know where togo. Should they go to the NGB? Should they go to
the police? Should they go to just the organization,
the gym that they’re in. I think the other thing isthat SafeSport has been a damaging institution for
those people who have gone through the processitself. So, it’s not doing a good job of being transparent throughout the process. It doesn’t make survivors feel supported, and I believe there’s a second
part to your question and I apologize for missingthat part.

MR. GRAY: So, to clarify, are you talking about theoriginal SafeSport policy in 2012 or the Center for
SafeSport?
COMMISSIONER COHEN: The Center for
SafeSport.

MR. GRAY: Okay, so, as my original statement, in,you know, between 2012 and 2017, each NGB was
doing their own thing, and it was working fairly
well other than the cases we all know about. The
Center improved things in 2017 because it createdthe outlet for all the NGBs to assign the really serious cases that, frankly, most aren’t capable of handling. The larger ones maybe, like us or, you know,
COMMISSIONER KORB: Not at all. I think you some of the other bigger ones, but the Center was
shared that, but the second part of the question critical in that aspect, essentially taking that off thewas: what do you hear from the athlete community backs. And you got to keep in mind, most of theand from survivors who have participated in SafeS- people in these NGBs are volunteers, and it canport’s process?
be pretty burdensome, so that was one great effect,
and then the ramped-up rules for screening and forMS. FRENCH: Oh, yes.
video training. That all helped too, because it created awareness for parents and kids alike as to how
COMMISSIONER KORB: You answered.
to identify certain things that might happen. So, I
guess your specific—did it improve child safety?
MS. FRENCH: Yeah, I can continue on that line Yeah, I think the increased awareness, screening,
for a while here. Further, athletes and parents don’t and—arguably—better ways to address the mostfeel that SafeSport is a trusted or respected entity, serious cases helped us.
so oftentimes, they feel as if why should they report to SafeSport if it isn’t trusted. If the process COMMISSIONER COHEN: And the second partis re-traumatizing, why would they continue to go was: were there any added burdens to you, from an
to it for training or for reporting? Cases are ended administrative standpoint?
without notice. Cases are—there’s no support after. I think there’s a general lack of trust within the MR. GRAY: Well, the burdens now are—I talkathletic community with victims of abuse to go to ed about how it’s just too incredibly slow. I mean,
SafeSport. Thank you.
I’ve done since 2012 in the neighborhood of 1,500
SafeSport investigations myself, and they take two
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. I’d like to yield to weeks, or a month at the most, depending on how
Commissioner Cohen.
involved and how many witnesses and how available they are to reach and talk to and all that kind
COMMISSIONER COHEN: Thank you. My ques- of stuff. But there’s no reason it should take moretion is for Mr. Gray. I’m curious—how has SafeSport than a month. Absolutely not. And then, secondly,changed athlete safety within your NGB compared my other point was the cases that the jurisdiction
to the internal processes that you had in place pri- was taken and then they administratively close, andor to SafeSport’s establishment, and were there any we don’t know what it is that the person supposgaps, failures, or added burdens that were brought edly did, and I think we should. The parents or the
on by SafeSport?
athletes that reported those concerns, for the mostpart—now, there are bad-faith complaints, but forTranscript of the Commission’s Public Hearing185

the most part—reported those out of a concern andgood faith, and I think they’re owed the diligence tolook into what they’re complaining about and notjust close it out.

the two of us, in U.S.A. Track and Field in the mid1980s, there was this—it was kind of like SafeSport
was, what you’re saying between 2012 and 2018
or whatever, there was a bit of a, you know, ‘fox
guarding the hen house’ situation. And in the case
COMMISSIONER COHEN: Great, thank you.
of U.S.A. Track and Field and, quite frankly, the
USOPC at the time—or USOC at the time—there
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Commissioner Fitzgerald Mos- was this non-punitive drug testing that was hapley, I’ll yield to you now for your question.
pening. People were told: “Hey,” you know, “you’ve
got a positive test. You may not want to show up to
COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY: this meet.” I remember this mass exodus from theMine is for Mr. Gray as well. It’s kind of a follow-up 1983 Pan-American games after everybody foundto Mr. Cohen’s question. Yeah, in your testimony, out that they had tested positive, but there was no,you were talking about narrowing the scope for the you know, no punishment happening. So, you know,
U.S. Center for SafeSport to more serious cases and I think Professor Hamilton said that the instinct isthen let the NGBs handle less serious cases, and I’m always to protect the institution and the perpetrawondering, you know, how do you think this collab- tor, and not the victim, so I’m wondering—do you
oration between the U.S. Center for SafeSport and see how that might cause, taking the clock backthe NGBs would, you know—how would it work in a little bit and putting some of these cases in the
your view? What the collaboration would look like? hands of the NGBs, might not work out so well for
And what steps should we take to bring this, you the victims.
know, to fruition, to make this a safer process forthe athletes?
MR. GRAY: I can see that being a concern, definitely.
But, you know, we’ve also heard concerns along the
MR. GRAY: Thank you for that question. I’m glad lines that if the Center is heavily funded by NGBs
you asked that question, and it kind of fits in with then there’s a concern there, too. I would firmly be inwhat the professor was talking about. I firmly be- favor of some kind of reporting mechanism, where
lieve that the Center’s resources were used to build when the NGB does—there is one already, frankly—I
a system that better addresses the concerns she laid mean, when the NGB completes a case, we have toout, and, in so far as focusing on the most serious report the details of that to the Center, and…
cases, which I think we can agree for the most partare sexual-misconduct cases, and build a better COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY:
structure where maybe there is some support af- Yeah. So that’s the collaboration you would…
terwards for the athlete, and the cases are handled
more quickly, and all of those things that people MR. GRAY: …collaboration there so that they’re
have talked about. If the Center focused its resourc- monitoring it, and I think that’s appropriate.
es and efforts on that kind of stuff rather than someof these more minor cases, we’re very capable as MS. HAMILTON: May I add just a point to that, if
NGBs to deal with those, and the last piece would that’s okay? The need for comprehensive policies isbe the Center could also provide training, educa- acute in the Olympic system. We put together what’s
tional materials, even updated policies and proce- called the “Gold Standard for Child Protection.”
dures that we could follow. But let us do it, and let Right now, I would say that the Olympic system isthem focus on that critical stuff that we really aren’t doing about 25% of it, but if that were instituted, thecapable of doing.
NGBs would have the help they need and guidance.
COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY: CO-CHAIR XIAO: All right, we have time for one
Can I just ask a follow-up question, because—is Ed- more question from Commissioner Hogshead.
win down there still? Yeah, when we went through,186

Appendix I

COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: I’m going tofollow up on what you were just saying, which has
to do with—can you provide an expert opinion on
the types of cases that SafeSport should be handling
directly versus what the NGBs are doing? And whattypes of culture change should the whole Olympic
movement be concerned with when it comes to, say,boundaries between coaches and athletes?

touching up to rape. And so, given that, I do worry
about coaches that are out there touching the athletes inappropriately. Maybe not taking them in asecret space, but when they’re touching them inappropriately they’re creating a potential for lifelong
trauma. So, there’s a lot to be done. But, as I said,
I’m very optimistic because the science is there, itjust has to be implemented.

MS. HAMILTON: That’s a lot, but that’s exactly
what needs to be done: an entire culture change.
There needs to be a flip in the system from the current power structures to an athlete-centered system.
An athlete-centered system would be one in whichathletes are supported and in which there is a real
dedication to prevention through the policies that
we know are tried-and-true but are not yet close
to being implemented at any level of the Olympic
system at this point.

CO-CHAIR XIAO: Alright. Thank you. I yield backto Co-Chair Koller.

CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you all so much forbeing here today. The Commission sees your input
as invaluable as we consider recommendations thatwill make movement sports safer for all who participate. This morning we learned about the history of
the movement and its governance. We heard fromsome of its most senior leaders, and we exploredthe critical issue of safety. We will now take a break
But the science is there. That’s what’s frustrating. for lunch. When we re-convene this afternoon, theThe will is there by this Commission and really the Commission will hear about athletes’ rights, equipublic. The science is there. It can be so much bet- ty and accessibility and participation, good goverter. But, going back to SafeSport’s jurisdiction, you nance practices, and how to build a better systemknow, we study these things. We have two journal for youth and grassroots sports in our country. Our
articles in review. One is about poly-abuse—physi- hearing will re-convene promptly at 1:00. Thanks.
cal abuse, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse. I thinkthat SafeSport should be focusing on sex abuse. It[BREAK]
should coordinating with every law-enforcement
officer it could find. They’re really good at investi- CO-CHAIR KOLLER: I’d like to call this hearing
gating sex abuse—a lesson the bishops had to learn. back to order. Our first session this afternoon will
be divided into three parts. First, we will hear from
With respect to emotional abuse and with respect two distinguished leaders in the field of athletes’to physical abuse, emotional abuse is slightly over rights and representation who can speak to a num50% of all athletes. Those are issues that need to be ber of current challenges facing athletes across thehandled at the NGB level, and they need to be en- movement. And, as we do, I want to take the moforced against the coaches, and the coaches need to ment to remind our witnesses and to all those who
be educated on why they can’t engage in physical are here with us and listening on the livestream thatand emotional abuse, and they can’t cover up sex this Commission is, of course, not just focused on
abuse. So, I just think they’re two different arenas Olympic sports but Paralympic sports as well, and I
for athlete well-being; you’ve got to cover all three. hope we will all be mindful of that.
I would put sex abuse over there.
I’d like to introduce our witnesses. First we haveWith respect to the lesser sex-abuse claims, I’m not Donald Fehr. Until last year, Donald Fehr served as
sure, because the reality is—the science is—that a Executive Director of the National Hockey League
child who is touched over their clothing may have Players’ Association, and he was previously themore trauma than a child that is raped. The harm Executive Director of the Players’ Association for
that’s done to a child, you can’t put it on a chart of Major League Baseball. He has spent nearly half aTranscript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

century as an advocate for athletes and, in doing so,
not only helped make our favorite pastimes more
equitable and fair but stronger and more commercially successful as well.

187

the Major League Baseball Players’ Association,
twenty-five years plus as its Executive Director, andtwelve with the NHLPA representing hockey players, a position from which I just retired. In bothorganizations, in addition to the ordinary collecWe are also joined by Ed Williams, a former prose- tive bargaining responsibilities, I represented thosecutor, champion athlete, past Chair of the USOPC players in all discussions and negotiations relating
Athletes’ Advisory Council, and long-time advocate to Olympic matters, including participation in thefor athletes’ due-process rights under the law. He games, in the international federation world chamalso testified before the 1976-77 President’s Com- pionships, as well as the World Baseball Classic andmission on Olympic Sports, making him truly a the World Cup of Hockey, which are joint internaliving link between that independent governmental tional championships put on by the players and thecommission and our own. Mr. Fehr?320
owners in the two leagues but with the participation of the relevant Olympic country and internaMr. Fehr, I just want to remind you to hit your but- tional federations by contract.
ton. Sorry. Thank you.
Within this movement, I was a public-sector DirecMR. FEHR: Is that better? Thank you. It’s been a tor of the USOC from ‘96 to 2003, heavily involved
long time since I’ve been in this hearing room as in a wide variety of issues generally at the execua witness. I can’t tell you that I’ve missed it. I will tive-committee level and with the AAC. I was a
say that, in one sense, it’s unfortunate that I’m here member of the Bid Oversight Commission reviewagain, because that means this Commission is nec- ing Salt Lake. That report was issued in 1999. And
essary. But it is necessary. So, what I’m going to do, I left the USOC board in 2003 when John McCain,
if you’ll permit me, is summarize my written state- who was then Chairman of the Senate Commerce
ment, which I ask to be included in full in the re- Committee, asked if I would chair what came to becord. And I have a reputation of being not warm called the Independent Commission on USOC Reand fuzzy, so I don’t intend to do that. I’ll adhere as form, which the USOC then established.
closely to the five minutes as I can.
This is sort of a long way around saying I’ve seenFirst, my opinions represent the accumulated views this, I believe, from every angle possible. What doesof fifty years of experience doing this. In October this experience tell me? It tells me, principally, thatof 1975, I first started representing Major League there’s two ways to go at this. We can say: “Here’s a
Baseball players. Second, this law that established problem, how do we fix it? Here’s another one, how
this Commission was established in the stark light do we fix it?” I suggest that that’s an endless task,of abuse. All over the papers, all over the newspa- and the problems of tomorrow are not going to bepers, damaging the brand, the athletes, the coaches, consistent with the ones of today. What you needand everyone. But, this effort is one of a long series to do is create a different governmental frameworkof efforts. Previous approaches tried to figure out that works and then entrust the people operatingsome way to have others take care of the athletes that framework to solve the problems and holdbetter. I think we’re finally at the stage where we them accountable if they don’t.
simply need to take to heart the words of the law,
and we have to empower the athlete.
The Independent Commission report in ‘03 essentially said: ‘Let’s get rid of this 120-plus person
We have to make certain that they have the resourc- board, and let’s have independent directors andes necessary, if you will, to take care of themselves. end the political infighting.’ And we hoped that that
Doing so means fundamental change. As I said, I’ve would make a big difference. Our report was notbeen doing this a long time—1975 until 2010 with adopted. The USOC did make changes in this re320

Extended written testimony submitted by Donald Fehr appears following the live transcript on p. 234.

188

Appendix I

gard, but if asked the question ‘did it work?’ we only
have to look around the room, because if it had wewouldn’t be here.
I start as my bargaining training teaches me with asummary of what the entity is. What in the world
are the Olympic Games, which are shrouded inmythology? I hope this is not overly blunt. The
Olympics today are a commercial-entertainment
enterprise. They are a show consisting of athleticcompetitions of individuals and teams representing
nations. Fans—everywhere else we call them customers—purchase expensive tickets to watch theshow. Broadcast entities pay large sums of money
to broadcast it. Businesses pay the broadcasters
in the Olympic Games these large sums of money
to advertise on the broadcast and on the boards
around the rinks and at the games. Sponsors pay
a lot of money to associate themselves with thegames. Merchandise and souvenirs are sold all overeverywhere.

the athletes, you don’t have the best in the world,
everything changes. And, in my view, it’s time weempower the athletes, as I said, to take care ofthemselves.
I offer several ideas. These are not specific recommendations for legislation or for amendments to
the USOC Constitution or Bylaws. They are concepts, and if this Commission decides that fundamental reform is needed, here are some ideas you
could consider.

First, recognize that the USOPC board is not, in
any normal sense, responsible to anyone. There are
no shareholders. There are no bond holders. There
are no owners. If you say they’re accountable to thepeople of the U.S. or the Congress, that’s great—butthat only matters when the scandals have been running around in the newspapers for two years. Given
the short careers of the athletes, by the time that
happens, of course, the damage is done. The board
members are accountable only to themselves, andIn other words, lots of money is changing hands I don’t even have any idea how their performancein big-dollar, garden-variety commercial activities, is measured or by whom. First question, then, is:and a very long list of people and businesses are who is the constituency to which the board owes
getting paid and making profits. And the Olympics allegiance? I suggest it’s the athletes, because I can’t
have no business risk, as that term is ordinarily un- think of another one.
derstood. There is no competition, and the productdoesn’t look like it’s going out of style.
Second, the athletes’ voice on the board needs to beenhanced or empowered. The way it’s been strucBut there’s an exception. The exception is the ath- tured throughout my tenure, the athletes can always
letes. Consider that people who watch the games, or be out-voted on every issue. Among the things thatwant to be associated with them—advertisers—do could be considered would be to increase the voteso because they want to watch the athletes or be- of the athletes to 50%. Second, I would eliminate
cause they want to be associated with the athletes. in whole or in part for the athlete representatives
The athletes are the stars. They bring the fans. They the requirement that an athlete representative havebring the advertisers and the sponsors. Consider been an athlete within some defined period of time.
what would Audi’s four rings be worth if they didn’t If other people that name individuals to the board
have cars? With all due respect, I don’t think the can ask George W. Bush or Barack Obama to be
Olympic rings would be worth very much if they a board member, I don’t know why in the world
didn’t have the athletes.
the athlete can’t. You have to trust the athletes tomake the choice. And I would also give them theConsider one other example, which I use educating right to remove a board member they name if they
players about what their role is in both sports. If believe that board member is not acting in their
tomorrow we changed every person who has ev- interest. An alternative to this would simply be toery job in the U.S. Olympic movement and threw give the athletes veto power over certain key decithem out and got new and put on the games, the sions: CEO, other officers, budgets, things like that.
fans would not notice the difference. You change I think the athletes ought to have the right to audit

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

any Olympic organization any time they want tomake sure that it’s working right.
Last in this regard for a closing thought, I thinkathletes would be well served—and the movement
would be well served—by creating an organizationof athletes with sufficient funding, which is entirely
controlled by the athletes, run by professional staffof their choosing, and solely dedicated to their benefit and welfare. If an athlete has an issue—or theparent of one—they need someplace to go where
they know that people are on their side and theirside only.
Last comment, and then just a couple of straythoughts regarding earlier testimony. Athletes are
not usually considered employees in the ordinary
sense. They don’t get W-2s, as far as I know. Mostof the time, they don’t. But the notion that, somehow, they don’t work for the Olympic movement or
the USOPC or their NGB is just silly. You can’t saythat with a straight face. And, if you’re going to be
an Olympic athlete, your potential opportunity costis enormous, because if you are training for years,
what are you not doing? What other employment
or educational opportunities are you not availingyourself of? I don’t think I have to spell that out.
And while in a few careers a lucrative professional
contract is always possible, that is not true for the
overwhelming number of athletes.

189

don’t think history suggests that that’s right.
And, accordingly, my recommendation comes down
to this: you have to empower the athletes, and thenyou have to trust them. They are not children. Someof them are young, many of them are not. There’s
a lot of eighteen-year-old hockey players, too. The
union works just fine. I’ve had the privilege of representing elite athletes and working for them forfive decades. They can handle it.
Three other quick thoughts. First, decisions at the
USOPC-board level and the NGB level are madejust like everywhere else. They’re made reflecting
whatever the power dynamic on the board is. That’s
what needs to be looked at.
Secondly, I watched on TV some of the earlier testimony, and there was a comment that we are doing what we can to make sure the athletes’ voice isalways heard. I started laughing when I heard that.
I don’t mean that in a caustic or demeaning way tothe person who said it, but that’s what every management says when it doesn’t want a union or athletes’ voice. ‘I know what’s best. You have to trust
me. My door’s always open. Come talk to me.’Third, why professional staff for an organization?
You learn a lot of things training to be an athlete.
How to run an organization like that and represent
athletes is not one of them. Ask Ed or Nancy how
I therefore would suggest that thought be given to those lessons are learned. They don’t come overestablishing some sort of mechanism to consider night, and they’re not apparently immediately obwhat kind of arrangements or agreements are ap- vious.
propriate to make sure the athletes are protected,that they are treated fairly, and that the conditions Last, I hope as some comment was made earlier
under which they train and compete are appropri- that there is a surplus at the L.A. games. I hope we
ate and that their contribution to the USOPC and don’t end up with any white elephants like the statheir own NGB is recognized. For various legal rea- dium in Montreal that’s been there since 1976. But
sons, I’m not here suggesting a traditional union. I suggest that there’s a reason there was a surplus
Happy to talk about that if anybody’s interested, but in 1984. The reason is the athletes didn’t get paid
I believe people can work this out.
anything. That’s why. Any company can make a lot
more money if it’s not paying its key staff. No issue
Many people, my guess is a whole lot of volunteers about that.
and staff, are going to respond by saying: ‘These
things aren’t necessary. We know what’s best for And I would then close by saying: where does thethe athletes. We can take care of them. Everything money come from that comes into the Olympic
that should be done has been done.’ Perhaps, but I movement? This isn’t Europe, where it’s an appro-

190

Appendix I

priation from the federal government. It comesfrom people who want to watch or be associatedwith the athletes. If you take nothing else out of
my testimony, I would ask you to remember that.
Thank you, and I apologize if I went on too long.

I have previously submitted a fifty-five page—sorry
for that—a fifty-five page written submission to thisCommission which, at some point, maybe some ofyou already read it. I will briefly highlight five points.

As a side note to my prepared comments, if you goon the internet and type in USOC and Team Integrity, your laptop will light up like the Christmas tree
in Rockefeller Center to show you the impact wehave had through the press. I acknowledge that the
Olympic Committee has made significant improvements to address the sheer, serious shortcomings
laid bare by the investigation of the criminal acts
and the abuse of girls and young women—particularly in U.S. Gymnastics but not limited to them,to Swimming, Taekwondo, Judo, other sports. But
there’s much more to be done.

Number four—and there are really three parts tomy number four. (4)(a) I’m a lawyer, sorry. The
USOPC should vigorously educate its member
NGBs and expand its efforts to ensure that athletes
are provided due process in both disciplinary andeligibility disputes. (4)(b) The USOC must expand
and put it in place a more rigorous review of athleteand team-selection procedures to ensure that they
are clear, unambiguous and free from non-objective discretionary requirements. (4)(c) The USOPC
must closely monitor and enforce the Sports Act
membership requirements for NGBs as well as
strengthen and follow its own policies to ensure

One, these are recommendations. An independent,
CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you, Mr. Fehr. Mr. private-sector Inspector General must be appointWilliams, at this time I invite you to share your tes- ed to monitor and oversee the operations of thetimony with the Commission.
USOC—I call it the USOC, excuse me, USOPC—
until such time or as he or she determines that the
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. USOPC can responsibly carry on without close
Just for the record, my name is Edward Williams. oversight by the IPSIG. And we can discuss later if
I’m an Olympian in the sport of biathlon. That’s you wish during questions and answer why I think
why I have the assistance of someone to translate if that’s necessary.
I can’t hear some of your questions. I’ve chaired the
U.S. AAC for four years. I was the Chairman of the Number two, the Sports Act should be amended
Legislation Committee of the Olympic Committee to require that the USOPC must itself provide thefor eight years and sat on the USOC board for eight same due process to athletes that the Sports Act
years. I have represented hundreds of athletes in requires NGBs to provide athletes. You’re probably
Section 9 right-to-compete cases and Section 10 amazed to know that the USOPC, under the Act, is
NGB-non-compliance cases, many of them on a itself not required to provide due process to athpro-bono basis.
letes or to affiliated non-employed members. Can
you believe that? That’s the due-process loopholeAnd, in February 2018, when former CEO of the that needs to be changed.
USOC stated to the world at the Winter Olympics
in South Korea that the Olympic Committee did Number three, athletes should directly elect their
not have the authority under the Sports Act to over- own athlete representatives to the USOPC board.
see and regulate its own member NGBs, including and they should be the voice of the athletes. Thank
Gymnastics, I founded—and I now co-chair with you, Don, for emphasizing that. Gone should be theNancy Hogshead—the Committee to Restore In- days when the USOC trots out an all-star alumni
tegrity to the USOC. Over 350 Olympic athletes, Olympic athlete who has not been elected to be aother athletes, parents, and supporters have joined representative to the athletes to speak on their beTeam Integrity in our mission to reform the USOC half and says that Blackmun did “a phenomenal job”
and have it truly put athletes first.
just as it shamelessly happened on February 8, 2018.

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

compliance and athletes’ well-being. Well, that’s
sort of a given, isn’t it? But it’s required.
These efforts, these three efforts, (4)(a),(b), and (c),if followed, will largely eliminate the need for Section 9 or Section 10 complaints. The Borders Commission spent an enormous amount of time—and
they did a terrific job—they spent a lot of time on,“Oh, how can we improve the Section 9 processes?
How can we improve the Section 10 processes?”That’s not my suggestion. My recommendation isthat the USOC do a better job so that Section 9 cases and Section 10 cases don’t have to be brought.
And, by the way, Section 10 cases—this is the
NGB-non-compliance cases—although it looks
plain and simple in the bylaws, they are terribly expensive for athletes to bring. I have prosecuted six
Section 10 cases. Each one of them, in terms of attorney-time, costs over $200,000. No athlete could
possibly expend that—and, my law firm will no longer do it. They said: “Ed, you’ve reached the end ofyour pro-bono work.” Section 10 cases just cannot
be prosecuted by athletes on a paying basis. If there
has to be a Section 10 case, there has to be anotherway to bring it.

191

Here’s my number five, finally. A new staff position,
an attorney athlete-advocate, should be created
and funded by the USOC. This person will work independently of the USOC off campus to prosecute
Section 10 cases, if necessary. Hopefully there will
not be any. And this athlete advocate, paid by thestaff, paid by the USOC, shall be able to give legal
advice to athletes, something that the Ombudsman
is not permitted to do. This attorney athlete-advocate must be a graduate of a highly ranked law
school, have an enviable academic record, and be
paid at least as much as the current Ombudsman
is being paid.
And my final point on number five is the existing
requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies within the NGB, which has been used not onlyby the NGB but by the USOC itself to stymie andblock Section 10 complaints, must be dropped.
Okay, finally, some bullet points. Quickly. (A) The
USOC needs to be more transparent. I will not recount ways, except to refer the Commission to Exhibit-E of my fifty-five-page submission written earlier.

(B) The mantra of the USOC leadership and staff
should be “athletes first,” and, as we say in the milFinally, in my number four, in connection with its itary, “selfless service.” Every proposed project andreview of NGB compliance, the Olympic Commit- decision should be made through the lens of ‘howtee must go beyond simply checking the box to see will this benefit the athletes?’
if the NGB has, ‘Oh, you have this Sports Act requirement in your bylaws. Check.’ No, no, no, no. (C) The USOC leadership, both staff and the board,
The USOC has to go beyond that and actually look must engage in a program of self-education. Justand see whether or not the NGB is actually follow- ask Mike Harrigan321 about that. Many good things
ing the required bylaw that it puts in bylaws. That’s and lessons learned in the past have been lost andforgotten on account of the lack of any institutional
where the rubber meets the road.
memory within the USOC.
So, in conclusion on my point four, a long one, ameasure of whether or not the Olympic Commit- (D) Getting close to the finish line. Although it’s very
tee is successful or not is whether or not Section 9 sad to even have to think about it, the USOPC board
and 10 cases are being brought. If there are Section must take steps to guard against the possibility of being
9 failure-to-provide-due-process cases or Section kept in the dark or even misled by paid staff. Sorry to
9 failure-of-selection-criteria cases or Section 10 bring it up, but that’s a possibility and may have hapfailure-of-NGB-compliance—if a number of them pened in the past. Read my fifty-five-page submission.
are brought, hey, that is a signal that the USOC has Direct reports should be made to the board by the Chief
failed. Zero Section 9 and Section 10 cases should Compliance Officer as well as the Ombudsman detailing athlete abuse and pending and threatened Section
be the objective of the Olympic Committee.
321

Michael Harrigan served as the Executive Director of the 1976-77 President’s Commission on Olympic Sports.

192

Appendix I

9 and Section 10 cases. A Board of Directors can only
carry out its responsibilities if it’s an informed board.

Second, the way the current law normally works,
you don’t say “okay, we’re going to have a union.’
You have to bargain. You have a union in an appro(E) The USOC’s whistleblower policy must be expand- priate bargaining unit. I don’t know whether theed and enhanced with whistleblowers having direct agreement should be all athletes with the USOPC,
access to the Chief Compliance Officer. Finally, the the national teams with their local governing body,
Olympic Committee has to be a bit more humble and individuals with respect to the various federations,more accepting of criticism and more tolerant of unso- or what the circumstance would be. That takes a lot
licited and even unwanted advice. The USOPC must of time and work and effort to work out.
step back and engage in critical self-evaluation, which
history shows, with a few exceptions, it is incapable of Third, the way the labor law works in the U.S.—with
doing.
two exceptions: public-employee unions and theRailway Labor Act, which governs railways and airThis is a tall order, but reforms can only be accom- lines—is it operates on the adversary system. The
plished if the USOPC is populated by people with high theory is you’re supposed to bargain in good faith.
character who possess a moral compass that points No one actually knows what that means until aftrue north and who are driven in their work by a sense ter the fact. But then, either side—managementof commitment of selfless service to the athletes that or labor—can resort to concerted action, that is to
the USOC is supposed to support. Thank you so much, threaten a lockout or to threaten to strike or to enladies and gentlemen.
gage in one or the other. Normally, you have ongoing businesses which the employees might be able
CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you, Mr. Williams. And, to work elsewhere and the customers might be able
I just want to take a moment and clarify for the record, to buy other products. There’s competitors.
I believe you said it in your testimony, but all of yourrecommendations and all of the suggestions that you You don’t have that very much in the professional
make apply as well to the Paralympic movement and sports leagues, but in the Olympic movement—if you
to our Paralympians as well. Am I correct about that?
look at the Olympic Games, for example, you’ve got
two games every four years, one opportunity every
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you so much.
four years for each athlete—unless somebody, I suppose, is both winter and summer. Unless that needs to
CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Yes, thank you.
become the focal point of the dispute—‘what are wegoing to do for this game?’—you ought to look to find
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Mr. Fehr, I want to turn back to some other mechanism. I don’t know if there is one,you for a moment. Over the years, many people have but my suggestion was that that needs to be examined.
suggested unionization as the solution, and you said There are all kinds of models for arbitration of various
in your testimony that, for various legal reasons, that things and mediation that might make sense.
is not what you were recommending. Could you elaborate, at least briefly, on why this is not a viable across- CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. Mr. Williams, sincethe-board solution?
the departure of Scott Blackmun as USOPC CEO,have you seen improvement in USOPC’s oversight of
MR. FEHR: I don’t want to suggest it isn’t viable. I do governing bodies as well as transparency in commuwant to suggest that we’re not in a position to make that nicating with athletes, based on your own experiencjudgment. First of all, unions normally require employ- es?
ees. The whole relationship would have to be redefined,
or statutory authorization for some different kind of MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In
arrangement would have to be made. That requires the terms of oversight of NGBs, there has been, I would
Congress.
say, significant improvement, and that was with thehiring of a Chief Compliance Officer, a former Assis-

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

193

tant U.S. Attorney, thank you, who has done a very
credible job as far as I can see. And my law firm is very
happy to put us out of business.
You really can’t have athletes and attorneys acting
as private attorney generals. That has to be done inhouse, and the Chief Compliance Officer, as far as I
can see—I’m not an insider—is doing a credible jobon that. But there are still several shortcomings that
I’ve seen. The first one, and Don has mentioned it, islack of accountability. There is no accountability by
the USOC board to anybody, certainly not to athletes.

was the reason the USOC board gave—‘Oh, we haveto meet his severance agreement.’ Well, Les Moonves
had a severance agreement too, and Debevoise &Plimpton, subject to the work of Ropes & Gray, dida scathing report and recommended to the board of
CBS: ‘Hey, you can’t give him a severance agreement.’
And guess what? They didn’t. Les Moonves sued andlost. Giving Scott Blackmun $2.4 million after the
events that were disclosed in South Korea was really, really outrageous and shows lack of accountability.
Sorry for the long answer.

I want to read to you a sentence that I received yesterday from an Olympic athlete who was very much
involved in the past as Chairperson of the Athlete’s
Advisory Council, who had sent me some very nicebullets. And here is what she said, and it resonatesvery true: “The USOC has no meaningful accountability. Athletes have been left to use the media to bringintermittent attention to problems, because there is noother meaningful way for them to make known theirposition and to have the USOC respond.”
The short-track issue—in which I represented a number of short-track cases, athletes—was only brought
to a head when Phil Hersh of the Chicago Tribune
wrote a scathing set of articles in the Chicago Tribune.
We also know about the Indy Star with gymnastics
when attorney Johnathan Little got his hands on awhole pile of secret files and delivered them to theIndy Star, and published them—and then, boom! The
USOC started to take reaction. That is not the way accountability should work.

CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you.
MR. FEHR: If I could take “one minute” and amend
my prior comment—when I suggest an organization representing the athletes, in a perfect world it
would have sufficient funding so that it would represent the athletes with respect to all matters pertaining to their participation in the Olympic movement. The point would be to eliminate from themor from their parents the right to go out and get
funding, which the overwhelming majority can’t—
as Mr. Williams has testified. It’s not cheap to dothat. That’s what the unions do. Thank you.
CO-CHAIR XIAO: I will yield back to Co-Chair
Koller for question.

CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you, and thank you,
Mr. Fehr, for that clarifying question. And I, again,
want to just clarify for the record—when you’retalking about an independent entity, you fully inExhibit (C) to the question of ‘have things improved?’ tend for this entity to cover Olympic-movement
and why there’s a need for independent inspector is athletes and Paralympic-movement athletes as well.
that the USOC, two years after the blowup in South Am I correct about that?
Korea in February 2018—two years later—it voted togive Mr. Blackmun $2.4 million because of what one MR. FEHR: All athletes within the ambit of thecaptured athlete at the press conference in Korea said: USOPC. Yes.
he had done such “a phenomenal job.” And the disclosure of the $2.4 million took place on July 3, 2019, CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Outstanding. Thank you.
months after Ropes & Gray came out with its report. Mr. Fehr, you had previously testified about athlete
How do you think that set well for the athletes? Was representation on the USOPC and NGB boards, andthat putting “athletes first?”
I want to follow up on that. Can you explain why, I
think you said, that they can always be outvoted. Are
I’m going to take a minute to add to this. Remember there other reasons why athlete representation isn’t
Les Moonves, CBS? He had a contract with a sever- sufficient to provide the types of meaningful rights
ance agreement just like Scott Blackmun did, which and protections that you’re talking about today?

194

Appendix I

MR. FEHR: Well, I think it comes down to this. In
my collective-bargaining experience, basically what
it comes down to is, with respect to those areas
which are mandatory subjects of bargaining, which
is most things, management is obligated to reachan agreement with its workers, with its employees,
there have to be an agreement. Unless you’re going to go to that model, you need the kind of representation on the decision-making body or bodies
which will require that result. That’s how I get there.

CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. I’ll yield back to the
Co-Chair.

CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you, I have anotherquestion for you, Mr. Fehr. You talked about empowering athletes and trusting athletes, and I’m wondering, in your experience and in the different contexts inwhich you’ve worked with elite athletes, does granting
additional power to athletes—trusting athletes, as you
say, to work things out—does that harm the games,
sport, the commercial enterprise that is sport? Are
The second thing that I mentioned was qualifica- there downsides to your approach?
tions for election. What I mean by that is this: it may
be that the athletes would choose to have someone MR. FEHR: I’m laughing because my very first mawho’s been around the movement for thirty-five or jor case as a lawyer was as one of the counsel to theforty years, has the benefit of that experience, has Baseball Players’ Association in the free-agency cascontacts all over the country and with the business es in 1975 and 1976. And the then-Commissioner ofentities that the USOPC does business with, who Baseball basically was making speeches and, I believe,
may be able to represent them better than an ath- from the witness stand was basically saying that if you
lete who ordinarily will not have had that opportu- allowed free agency, baseball would end. ‘Wouldn’t benity. I don’t know that that would be the case. All there anymore,’ I think he said, ‘The American League
I’m saying is the athlete should have the ability to would go out of business. We’d be down to five or six
make that choice if they so choose.
teams in the National League,’ if memory serves right.
Similar comments were made in the other sports.
CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you.
Well, we learned in the ‘60s and ‘70s—in the ‘60s
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. I’m going to yield with basketball and football, the bidding war for Joe
Commissioner Hogshead for the next question.
Namath between the Jets and whatever the NFL team
was—and we learned in basketball, as they began to
COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: Yes, Mr. Wil- get through, and then in baseball in the ‘70s and latliams, I wondered if you had any comments about er that not only is it not inconsistent with success, inthe U.S. Center for SafeSport? You’ve stayed away my view, it forges it. Because one of the things it didfrom talking about it.
is it made celebrities out of the players in a way thatthey were not previously. It enhanced revenue, and I
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you for that question. know of no one who believes that somehow profesHow many hours do we have? I will give one short sional-sports franchises would sell in the billions ofcomment on SafeSport. I’m a due-process guy. The dollars in hockey, which is far and away the fourthamount of time it takes for SafeSport to come to sport in North America—revenues are higher in thea resolution once a complaint is filed, the extreme other three—would suggest that somehow they can’t
amount of time, constitutes a denial of due process make it.
to both the accuser and the respondent. You can’t
have things sitting out there for a year or more or CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you for that. In thedrop a stone down a well and never hear the splash. interest of time, I’d like to move forward and invite
There has to be some time limit, reasonable time our second panel of this session to be seated. I want tolimit, imposed on SafeSport to bring a matter to thank you both, Mr. Williams and Mr. Fehr, for yourresolution. Again, to repeat, the length of time con- participation today. We sincerely appreciate you bestitutes the denial of due process to both parties.
ing here to share your insights with the Commission.

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

Our next panel focuses on equity and accessibility inOlympic- and Paralympic-movement sports. Chuck
Aoki is a three-time Paralympian in wheelchair rugby, a former wheelchair-basketball competitor, andnow the Community-Access Navigator for the University of Michigan’s Adaptive Sports and Fitness
program. He also serves as Vice Chair of the TeamUSA Athlete’s Commission and was one of our nation’s flag bearers at the opening ceremony for themost recent summer Paralympic Games in Tokyo.
Jeff Mansfield is a Deaflympic medalist in ice hockey and current President of the U.S.A. Deaf Sports
Federation, which is the national governing bodyfor deaf sports in our country. We are also joined by
Candace Cable, who in 1992 became the first woman
to medal in both the summer and winter Paralympic
Games. Today she serves as Director of the Community Outreach, Resources, and Education Program atthe Disability Rights Legal Center.

195

pic movement was referred to as the United States
Olympic Committee—USOC—as we’ve heard today still. While a seemingly small change, it is important for Paralympics to now be front and center
when we talk about the movement here in the U.S.
so it can never become an afterthought again.
This raises the important question, of course, as to
how the Paralympics can grow in a meaningful andsustainable way. From my perspective, there arethree important avenues that must be addressed inorder to take the Paralympics into a truly nationwide phenomenon. These are greater participationin adaptive sports, increased funding for developmental and elite Paralympic athletes, and overall
global change in way disability is viewed on a societal level.

So, first, there is an urgent need to create more systematic participation in adaptive sports across the
It is essential that all who want to participant can do entire country. To illustrate this point at both theso and access opportunities to reach for their lim- highest level and then all the way down to grassits in sports, especially Americans with disabilities, roots, allow me to share a couple of quick examples.
including those who are deaf and hard of hearing. I I got started in adaptive sports purely by accident.
now yield five minutes each to Mr. Aoki, Mr. Man- I was leaving a swimming lesson when an employfield, and Ms. Cable to help the Commission better ee of the rehabilitation center I took my lessons
understand the landscape for para and deaf sport in at asked if I wanted to play wheelchair basketball.
our country and the challenges facing athletes who Without waiting for my mother to respond, I said:
wish to participate. Mr. Aoki?
“Yes!” And, thus, I set off on the path down that has
led me to be in front of you all today.
MR. AOKI: Good afternoon, and thank you to everyone for having me here. As mentioned, my name My story is unfortunately too common, howevis Chuck Aoki. I’m a three-time U.S. Paralympic er. Adaptive sports is something people fall into
medalist in the sport of wheelchair rugby, a four- through a random connection or seeing a flyer
time world-championship medalist, and the Vice posted on the wall. There is no systematic way to
Chair of the Team USA Athletes’ Commission. I’m ensure people with disabilities have access to adaphere today to speak about my experiences in the tive sports and fitness opportunities like exists for
Paralympic movement here in the United States organized youth sport for able-bodied children. It
and to give some thoughts about how we can con- is high time for us to consider what can be donetinue to advance the movement here in the U.S.
to ensure adaptive athletes receive the same accessto opportunities to compete that our able-bodied
In my career, I have seen the Paralympics go from an compatriots have.
afterthought within the movement itself to growing into a meaningful partner within the USOPC. To highlight this need at the highest level, at theI think this change is perhaps best illustrated by Tokyo Paralympic Games held in 2021, the United
the acronym that I just used: USOPC. From its in- States won ninety-five medals. We competed in anception, with the Ted Stevens Act of 1978, to 2019, other 147 events which, while not resulting in medthe governing body of the Olympic and Paralym- als, saw elite athletes represent our country at the

196

Appendix I

highest level. These numbers may sound impressive—and we should be proud of every athlete who
has put on the USA jersey—however, as is often thecase, these numbers do not tell the entire story. I
say this because, despite these remarkable successes, the U.S.A. did not even contest 297 other medal
opportunities in Tokyo.

I firmly believe in the power of sport to change lives,
whether at the elite level or on a recreational basis.
Sports are an integral part of our culture, and we
all deserve to have access to compete and strive tobe the best versions of ourselves. We may not all
make it to the Paralympic level, but we can all finda community that accepts us and celebrates ourunique way of moving through the world. Thanks
Second, there is a need to see vastly more funding put for the time, and I look forward to answering any
into elite-level Paralympic sports here in the Unit- questions you may have.
ed States. The USOPC, as we all know, is one of the
only governing bodies that receives no funding from CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you, Mr. Aoki. Ms.
government or national sports oversight bodies. This Cable?
challenge is especially pronounced on the Paralympic
side, as the movement remains behind the Olympics MS. CABLE: Thank you. I’m Candace Cable, and I
in terms of awareness on a very broad level.
thank you for this opportunity to share my experiences with you. I’m optimistic and hopeful that you
For the purposes of this Commission, however, I hear today—it lights a fire of impeccable culture
strongly urge the committee to consider ways in change.
which the growth and development of Paralympic
sport could be supported via unique funding mech- I was always an optimistic and hopeful non-disanisms. One such example exists in the United King- abled child living with environmental privilege indom, where funding for Paralympic sport at least par- a white-supremacy, ableist world that valued me astially comes from a government-lottery tax. Another a non-disabled child. I believed I had every access
option could be taking the burden off of the USOPC to every opportunity. My spinal cord injury in 1975
to fund the Center for SafeSport under the condition and the use of a wheelchair for mobility promptthat at least 50% of said dollars be directed towards ed systemic ableism, taking away my value, my huParalympic growth and development.
manity, my access privilege, my optimism, and myhopefulness.
I posit these ideas as ones that would only grow theoverall pie of funding for the Olympic and Paralympic I was fortunate that a community of disabled peomovement in the U.S. This is because, as a Paralym- ple found me and introduced me to sports. Sport
pic athlete, I am never attempting to take things away brought humanity back for me. This is the power offrom or lessen the benefits or services my Olympic sport when everyone is included. I offer this story
counterparts receive. My only goal is to ensure we re- on ableism because I’m a historian. My first of nine
ceive equitable treatment, which does not come from Paralympic Games was in 1980 and should’ve been
lessening what they receive.
in Moscow, but the Soviets said they didn’t have any
disabled people, so they wouldn’t hold the ParalymAnd, third, we must continue to work to break down pic Games.
stereotypes about people with disabilities in our society so that all individuals with disabilities can live Disabled people have historically been institutionfulfilling lives. Sport is one such mechanism for do- alized or eliminated up until the mid-twentieth
ing so—and a powerful one at that. My two previous century. That’s why you didn’t see disabled people
points are both in service of this greater goal: by in- anywhere or any infrastructures ever built to increasing access to sport and then supporting our elite clude us, including the houses of the people. They
athletes who have disabilities we are changing the way exempted themselves from the ADA before it wasin which disability is viewed in the world at large.
passed so that they didn’t have to make these buildings accessible.

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

The framework of eugenics continues today in allof our legislation, and we’re still not thought of as
human beings—and all because of an -ism that israrely ever talked about. Ableism, the value of somebodies over other bodies, is deeply embedded in
the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee. The
infrastructure, the stakeholders—including the International Olympic Committee and the International Paralympic Committee—ableism dehumanizes, and it’s just one of the many forms of -ism thatcauses great harm.

197

and Paralympic movement. It’s the U.S. Olympic
and Paralympic movement.
The USOPC leadership responded with a dismal
tone. It was too much to do. Not receiving detailed
feedback, we were shocked and frustrated, which
led to a delay of completing the recommendations.

Part four of the recommendations focused entirely on the equity of the Paralympic movement. The
recommendations state that creating and implementing a plan for moving oversight of Paralympic
We do not have to be disabled to experience sports currently managed by the U.S. Olympic andableism. We know that racism is the foundation of Paralympic Committee under the U.S. Paralymableism. Olympians have historically been valued pic Division of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
as the pinnacle of the human experience within our Committee be moved out and under disabled sport
sport culture. This has created segregation, silenc- organizations and NGBs. This piece is critical toing, backstabbing, fear, micro/macro aggressions dismantling the current oppressions. Currently,
for all Paralympians. Ableist beliefs harm everyone, U.S. Paralympics is listed as a National Paralympic
including Olympians. It assures that Paralympians Committee, and it’s a division of the USOPC.
will never be valued as we strive for equity.
The recommendations also support understanding
I’ve been a part of the U.S. sport culture for for- disability education to dismantle bias to disability,
ty-plus years as an athlete, a 2010 athlete-services which Chuck spoke about, because disability andcoordinator on the Athlete Advisory Council, on Paralympians come as one. Systemic oppression,
the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Association, on conscious or unconscious, must be identified, rethe Olympic and Paralympic Relief Fund—and moved—and education is needed to better.
each name change came to include Paralympic. In
the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, it I worked on the LA28 bid. It was a constant strugdidn’t come from the top. It came from Paralympi- gle to promote equitable and authentic Paralymans’ emotional labor, pushing for visible value rec- pic narratives during that time. I really hope that
ognition of belonging.
LA28 organizers take advantage of the positive
paradigm shift that the organizers of the 2012 LonThe U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee cre- don Paralympic Games created. They developed aated a Council Racial and Social Justice with four strategy of education based on exposure, play, exareas of focus. I worked on the Institutional Aware- perience, and knowledge-building to dismantle
ness and Cultural Change Committee. We took our systemic ableism in the sport culture. This severwork really seriously, very seriously. In fact, we all al-year strategy began dismantling ableism and rewere changed by it. We got transparent, and we stored value to disabled human beings and elevatedbroke down a lot of our own discriminatory things Paralympians to an equitable space with Olympians.
that we were doing.
I think this next story sums up ableism and bias that
After a year, we delivered our recommendations to goes unchecked in our sport culture. This book,
remove systemic barriers to racial and social justice, and I’m holding up a book of Olympic trivia, wasempower athletes in driving societal change, and written by a U.S. Olympic and Paralympic board
anchor a commitment to access, diversity, equity, member, and it says: “Olympic Trivia.” But inside
inclusion, and justice from organizational policies, is Paralympic trivia also. When I asked the author
practices, and procedures within the U.S. Olympic why the title didn’t include “Paralympic,” he said

198

Appendix Ithat the editor didn’t like it. The Olympic athlete,
the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic board member,doesn’t see the value of telling the editor: ‘“Paralympic” must be on the title, because it’s a book that
includes Paralympic trivia too.’tives to better serve deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes—U.S. Soccer, for example, fully funds the U.S.
deaf national teams under the Extended National
Teams program—others have not. Consequently,
we have a sports landscape where ADA complianceis piecemeal, inconsistent, and neglected. In realWe can do better. We can create an impeccable in- ity, discrimination, abuse, and mistreatment takeclusion and equity for all athletes, and I really thank place at every level from grassroots youth sports toyou for your time.
high-performance sports.
CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you, Ms. Cable. Mr. Second, the Empowering Olympic and Amateur
Mansfield?
Athletes Act is important legislation that champions athlete safety. However, we also caution that
MR. MANSFIELD: Thank you, commissioners. the continued omission of the Deaflympics from
My name is Jeffrey Mansfield. As a three-time Deaf- the Sports Act mandate perpetuates a sports infralympian, I am honored to be here today as Presi- structure that fails to protect the health, safety, anddent of the U.S.A. Deaf Sports Federation. USADSF well-being of deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans.
is the national governing body of deaf sports in
the United States, a member of the International Because deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes are ofCommittee of Sports for the Deaf (ICSD), and the ten isolated in sports at every level, anxiety around
USOPC’s Affiliate Organizations Council. In short, self-advocacy, for fear of stigmatization and reperUSADSF is to the Deaflympics what the USOPC is cussions on playing time and opportunities to adto the Olympics and Paralympics.
vance, have prevented athletes from recognizing
and reporting wrongdoing. What results is an enThe summer and winter Deaflympics are quadrenni- vironment where deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes
al events administered by the ICSD. In 1955, the IOC are more vulnerable to physical, psychological, andrecognized the ICSD as an international federation sexual abuse and mistreatment. These factors makewith Olympic standing, and in 2001 IOC granted the exclusion of the Deaflympics and Deaflympians
ICSD the right to use the term ‘Deaflympics.’ How- a public-health issue.
ever, the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports
Act makes no provision for the Deaflympics. This Third is the issue of unequal opportunity. Neither theomission is at the crux of three issues I highlight to- Amateur Sports Act nor the U.S. Copyright Office
day as they relate to the movement and to the rights recognized the term “Deaflympics” as the ICSD’s inof deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans.
tellectual property, even though the IOC has granted
ICSD the right to use this term. This creates a double
The first relates to access and compliance. While it injustice, in which the USOPC provides zero fundingis true that deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes can to the U.S. Deaflympic program and we are precludand do take part in the Olympics and Paralym- ed from pursuing a wide swath of sponsor funding.
pics, the USOPC only tracks categories of disabil- Meanwhile, Deaflympic medalists are also excluded
ity that are covered under the Paralympics, and from Operation Gold awards.
deafness is excluded. Because of this technicality,
Becca Meyers, a deaf-blind Paralympian, was de- A growing number of countries, including Russia,
nied reasonable accommodations and was pressed now fund their national Deaflympic programs with
into making the decision to withdraw from the results that translate on the medal table. We believe2021 Tokyo Paralympic Games. In addition, com- that the lack of investment in the United States
pliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act is Deaflympic program reflects poorly on the Olymnot an explicit criteria for NGB certification. While pic and Paralympic brand in the United States, unsome NGBs have implemented policies and initia- dermines national pride, and exacerbates inequality.

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

In front of me are over 2,000 pages of documentsthat we have submitted to the Commission. These
documents chart a pattern several decades long of
deflection, dismissiveness, and denial that can be
described as discrimination on the basis of a specific disability, deafness. Today we are calling on the
USOPC and Congress to end this pattern and to
uphold compliance and athlete safety and equality
for deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans.
I urge for the insertion of the Deaflympics into the
Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act andto USOPC’s mandate and for the investment in
Deaflympians. As Deaflympians, we are proud towear the letters “U.S.A.” across our chests, and today we are calling on our country to have our backs.
Nothing about us without us. Thank you for yourtime.
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you for your testimony.
I’ll yield first to Commissioner Cisneros Prevo.
COMMISSIONER CISNEROS PREVO: My
question is to Mr. Aoki. Thank you for your testimony. Could you talk a little more about the challenges that athletes with disabilities still face within the movement, both at the high-performance
Paralympic level as well as the youth- and grassroots-participation level?
MR. AOKI: Uh, certainly. Thank you for yourquestion. I think there’s certainly many areas toexplore in this issue, but the one I would just startwith is the challenge of equipment. I think the reality is that for any adapted athlete, whether you’rea wheelchair user or visually impaired or anythingof that nature, you’re going to require specialized
equipment which, you know—you can’t buy it ata regular store. You have to order it special-made.
There’s only several manufacturers in the worldthat make them, and they’re often, you know—thecost is in the thousands of dollars just for equipment. And, particularly, for youth athletes they’re
growing. Their bodies are changing, and they haveto constantly do it, and so, in addition to the burdenof having added expenses from having a disability,
you then stack on top of it even being able to participate in recreational activities, adds even further

199

burden of money. So, I think the issue of equipment
access is a really challenging one that I would focus
on. But there are certainly many others.
COMMISSIONER CISNEROS PREVO: Thankyou.
CO-CHAIR XIAO: I yield to Commissioner Hogshead.
COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: I’d like to ask aquestion to Mr. Mansfield. Mr. Mansfield, can you
share a little bit more about the reasons why Deaflympics is distinct from the Paralympics? Such as,
what adaptations need to be made for competition?
MR. MANSFIELD: Thank you for that question. So,
there are several reasons, first of which goes backto efforts in the 1980s and 1990s around the international organizing committee and the deaf-sports
agency to create the Paralympics. There was an overwhelming desire for the Deaflympic community tomaintain the number of events that they held—andthe Deaflympics, I should add, has been around since
1924—and, by joining the Paralympic community,that would have resulted in the subtraction of seatsthat were available to Paralympic athletes and deaf
athletes both. So, the preference was to maintain thenumber of seats separately so that they could operateconcurrently.
Modifications that happen in the Deaflympics include lighted notification systems, access throughsigned languages, speech accessibility through captioning—so, in service of provision, a complete or
optimal space for deaf athletes at every level, fromyouth sports to elite-performance sports. And, as I
have learned through my own experience as an elite
athlete, when you reach the higher-performance levels, the margins that separate an elite athlete from an
Olympian or Paralympian are razor-thin. And thosemargins really also can make the difference between
a deaf athlete’s ability to access an environment thatprovides optimal services for a deaf and hard-of-hearing person’s or athlete’s communication needs or not.
So, this again goes back to the fact that, to get to thehigher performance levels, we have to start at the

200

Appendix I

grassroots level, and we have to encourage culturechange at every level, including attitudes towards different disabilities, including deafness and people whoare deaf. Deafness and the Deaflympics have not had
the same status as the Olympics or the Paralympics
in this country, and you see this pattern that deaf andhard-of-hearing athletes—their progression is interrupted, and this has an impact on long-term healthoutcomes of deaf people. The amount of opportunities that are available for deaf and hard-of-hearing
Americans are also limited.
COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: Can I ask one
follow-up? Well, so you just said that the progression was limited for deaf athletes. What did you
mean by that?

CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you very much. Commissioner Schmitz has our next question.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: Mr. Mansfield, inyour testimony just now you spoke about some additional safety or maybe practical challenges facing
deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes, yourself included.
Just to clarify, are these athletes currently protectedby SafeSport?
MR. MANSFIELD: Yes, but again, as has alreadybeen mentioned today, while we report things to
SafeSport, it’s like sending a complaint into a vacuum,
and, in addition to that, at younger levels—or youthsport levels—deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes, andtheir families included, are already at a disadvantage.
So, to then report—it creates a fear of repercussions
or retribution on playing time. So, for those reasons,often deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes will decide
to not report abusive or misconduct. And, in fact, wehave research and statistics that show that deaf andhard-of-hearing Americans are 25% more likely toexperience mental-health issues than those who canhear normally.

MR. MANSFIELD: So, I can use my own experience as an example. I was cut from my first hockey
team at nine years old because the coach did not
believe that a deaf person could play hockey. And,at every level beyond that, I continued to encounter similar obstacles, which really arose from someone’s doubt or preconceived notions about deaf
people, and that is widespread around our entire
country in the arenas of sports.
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. I’ll yield now to
Commissioner Cohen, who has questions for two of
In Nebraska there was a high-school wrestler who our witnesses.
was denied access to the state championship because he did not recognize a whistle being blown COMMISSIONER COHEN: Thank you. I have twoby the referee, because there was no visual-alert de- questions. My first is for Ms. Cable. And I apologize
vice available. And, as a result of that, he was denied for diverting the conversation to the bid process, but
the opportunity to have an equally competitive en- as a former bid leader I’m curious of your involvevironment. But you see this happen at every sport ment with the LA28 bid and kind of, you know, howthat deaf and hard-of-hearing players—they’ll con- you saw the United States’s approach to the bid protinue to play beyond a whistle blow, and then they cess and whether you saw gaps or ways that we could
have repercussions that then cause emotional trau- improve the bidding process in the United States, as
ma. And we see this happen also between coaches you were the Vice Chair of the LA28 bid.
and athletes, where a coach doesn’t recognize whatis needed to provide appropriate access to deaf ath- MS. CABLE: Thank you for that question about LA28
letes, and then this results in an environment where and what the bid process was like. So, L.A. got the bid
an athlete is being looked down upon by their coach, late because Boston was selected by the USOPC to be
and they’re not then getting the same amount of the city that would go after trying to host the games
playing time or they’re being denied opportunity for 2024, not 2028. And then the citizens of Boston
for additional instructional opportunities. So, again, decided that they didn’t want that, and so they were
this happens at every level—the youth level, grass- halfway through the process and L.A. put its hand up,
roots—but it also does happen at the elite NCAA and so they were behind on everything.
levels as well and beyond.

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

201

And I moved to Los Angeles in 2015 and met somepeople that had some things to do with the bid, andI was invited to the event where they were going
to unveil the logo. And, as I was meeting people
and wandering around, and I noticed that up onstage there was an Olympian, an adult Olympian,and then there was a child with a disability, and I
thought: ‘oh, this is really interesting. There’s noadult Paralympian here.’ And they unveiled thelogo, and it was this beautiful angel-looking thingthat had lots of beautiful colors, and it was only
the Olympic rings. And I thought: ‘Well, what’s going on here?’ Like, why aren’t the Paralympic agitos here? Because I know that there’s a contract—I
know there’s a contract—that says if you bid on
hosting the games you bid for the Olympics and theParalympics. It’s a must now. It’s not like what I said
about the Soviets. You don’t get to choose anymore.

tric, and the reason it is, from my perspective, isbecause it’s run by the IOC. I mean, we have to follow, if you’re host, if you’re pining on trying to win,
being the host of the games, the IOC runs everything. So, the IOC dictates all the things that are deliverables and the things that need to happen. Andso, having any Paralympic narrative really doesn’t
matter to them, and they’re the ones who make thedecision.

And I really think that that was very helpful for us
to have someone in the office with a visible disability as a part of it, but it wasn’t enough in the office tocontinue to remind people that it was the Olympic
and Paralympic Games. It was very Olympic-cen-

So, I think there are gaps that are a part of the bid
process, or also a part of our process in general, isthat we don’t have education around incorporating Paralympics and disabilities into the narrative,
and people are too afraid about disability. I mean,

The IPC did come and visit, but their visit wasn’t
as elaborate at the IOC’s visit. I think that’s a gap. I
think that’s a problem. I also think that it’s a problem
that both symbols aren’t a part of the bid process. I
think that’s a huge gap. We have such an opportunity in so many spaces in sport to educate about
equity, inclusion, access for everyone because, really, disability is a human-life experience we are all
going to have—should we live long enough, you’re
And I asked someone who was a part of the bid, going to have an age-related disability. Bottom line.
and they said: “Oh, well, the International Olympic And you’re going to want these things in place. And
Committee determines how the bid process goes.” sports is an amazing venue to create these things.
That they determine the logo, you know, the fonts,
and that you only use the rings, you don’t use the I think another gap is one that I mentioned in my
Paralympic symbols. I thought that was so odd, but testimony: is that London 2012 created a visceral
I posted it on Facebook, and people were very up- paradigm shift. You actually could taste it in the air.
set about not having the Paralympic symbols. And There were more people that attended the ParalymI said, well don’t get mad at the bid people, because pic Games than the Olympic Games in London.
it’s not their fault. And, actually, USOC—it’s not That was almost unheard of. They had a sponsor
their fault either, it’s actually the IOC’s fault. That’s that was Paralympic-only sponsor, Sainsbury’s,
their deal. And I got a call the next day asking me which is a grocery store in the UK. They said: ‘We
to be Vice Chair, and they said, well, we really liked only want to sponsor the Paralympic Games,’ andthe way you handled that, and I thought: ‘Well, that they put together a program that was about teachwas easy!’ And I started to show up at the office and ing the entire country about Paralympics, disabilsee how things were run, and I saw that there was ity, and it went to schools. And then the schools
no Paralympic representation at all. There was no that won the competition that they had won a day
person with a disability that had any visibility in it. with David Beckham, because he was sponsored
And I kept going to their events and things, and I by Sainsbury’s. So, and then they had television
went to the leadership, the CEO and the Chair, and shows, they had late-night talk shows. They had a
I said: “You should hire me, because I really can late-night talk show called “The Last Leg” that was
help you build up the narrative about Paralympics hosted by a single-leg amputee, and it was hilarious.
even though we’re not displaying it.”
It still continues to today, it’s so popular.

202

Appendix I

I would speak up in the executive meetings aboutsomething, and it would be full-on silence, crickets. I was like: ‘Oh my gosh, did we say something
wrong, out of place? What should we do?’ And I
talked to friends who also work in corporate thathave visible disabilities, and they say it’s the exact
same thing. People just get so shy and uncomfortable and embarrassed that they might do something wrong, and we need good education.

they manage two Paralympic sports that are fairly
unique and don’t have perfect able-bodied, sort of,match-ups. I think it makes a lot of sense in thatregard to have, sort of, a specialized knowledge.

COMMISSIONER COHEN: No, thank you verymuch.

COMMISSIONER KORB: Ms. Cable, have thereforms to create more opportunities for athleteswith disabilities or disabled athletes, however you
identify, in the Paralympic movement extended toyouth, grassroots, or development pathways?

So, I guess the answer to your question is that theinternally managed model I don’t believe is one thatis sustainable and should succeed, and I understandthere are a lot of challenges and reasons as to why
we have that, and it’s a decent fallback option, but
And so, I would say, in your process with Salt Lake the goal should be for all Olympic, all Paralympic,
you should be pounding the message about the sports to be managed either by their able-bodied
Paralympics. Because everybody knows about the compatriot or, you know, as you said, a Paralympic
Olympics. Like, I mean, really. If you just look at Sport Organization that, you know, manages ones
it, it’s just you say that ‘oh, the games are coming,’ that, again, don’t have a really good equivalent. And,and they’re like ‘oh, the Olympics.’ And they don’t so, there’s not a natural place for it to fall into, sortknow about the Paralympics, and it’s a huge mar- of like swimming or something like that.
keting mistake, from my perspective, to eliminate
that, because there’s a lot of money out there that CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. Commissioner
could come from a lot of new places. I’ll stop there. Korb, I’ll yield to you for a question.

MS. CABLE: Clearly I can talk about…
COMMISSIONER COHEN: No, I’m glad I diverted for a little bit. My, my second question is for Mr.
Aoki. The current administration of para sports
within the movement falls to a mix of NGBs, internally managed sports, and Paralympic Sports Organizations like the Lakeshore Foundation. In yourview, which structures best serve the needs of ournation’s Paralympians?
MR. AOKI: That is a fantastic question. I think thereality is that—I’ll answer your question this way, inthat I don’t believe internally managed is the best
option. I think that the most that—in the way inwhich the movement sits today I’m of the opinion
that the USOPC shouldn’t be having internal managed sports. I think all the sports should be undersome. In some cases, that makes sense for the sport
to be paired up with its able-bodied compatriot, asin skiing/snowboarding, for example, has paraskiing/snowboarding. I think it makes a lot of sense
there. To your example, Lakeshore Foundation,
where I’m actually heading to later today, you know,

MS. CABLE: Thank you for that question. No. And
I’d say that, you know, simply because we don’t see
any building-out of opportunities for disabled youth.
I think Chuck’s story was really great, because he said,
you know, basically it was somebody said something
to him about playing a sport and, ‘oh my gosh, I canplay sport?’ Your story that you gave us earlier in the
beginning, same thing. It’s all word of mouth withinsport for a disabled folk. I think that it’s gotten very
stuck that way, because we haven’t gotten the support of, well, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, for one. Once U.S. Paralympics—I mean, theU.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee kind of really started dabbling a little bit in Paralympic sport
a little bit before U.S. Paralympics in 2001, but once
U.S. Paralympics came as a division, it really seemed
like the natural progression would be to bring in allof these grassroots development if they were going
to be basically an NGB for at least six or seven sports,
Paralympic sports, right? And we haven’t seen any ofthat really happen.

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

We see some clinics happen once in a while, but
those are usually funded through an outside source.
There was—at one time, there was quite a bit ofmoney for veterans, so we saw a lot of clinics andcamps. I was teaching cross-country skiing and sitdown cross-country skiing at the time, and the ones
we were seeing was the veterans, and it was because
there was so much V.A. money that was going into
U.S. Paralympics to support cross-country skiingthat these clinics were happening around. But thatwas really it. There wasn’t—if you were a citizen you
were required to pay all your own expenses and tobring all your own equipment, but as a veteran all
their expenses were paid as well as they were given
equipment, you know, from these grants that wereavailable, and the grants aren’t really available forany outside organizations.

203

sport, are all aging out, and we’re not seeing newcoaches come in. And so, that also limits the pathways
and the grassroots development. And we don’t haveany development for new coaches really coming forward in Paralympics. I know there are some programs,
but really focusing and getting people excited about
Paralympic sport doesn’t seem to be at the top of theagenda.
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you, Ms. Cable. I will yieldback to my Co-Chair.

CO-CHAIR KOLLER: I want to thank each of you
for being here today to make sure that these important issues are front and center for the Commission
and inform our study and our report to Congress. Our
final panel of this session concerns good governance,
and at this time I’d like to invite our next witness to
I live in Los Angeles. There’s several sports organi- take his place at the table.
zations for people with disabilities there, and all ofthem work independently of each other. There isn’t a Since its creation in 2000 and recognition by Congress
lot of cohesion that goes on between them, because in 2001, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, or USADA, has
they’re all, basically, searching for the same dollar. been working to root out the use of performance-enAnd they don’t get any support from the U.S. Olym- hancing drugs and other prohibited substances andpic and Paralympic Committee. They also, you know, methods in our sports. Much like SafeSport, USADA
they also in Los Angeles are creating the sport pro- has been tasked by Congress to oversee the protection
gramming with Parks and Rec with the city.
of an indispensable value in American sports, which
is fair play. Today the United States is viewed as a leadBecause when L.A. took LA28, one of the things is er in clean sport, and USADA is respected by athletes
that the IOC gave 2028 a bunch of money to go into and by participants across the movement. To help us
developing some kind of sport for youth in Los An- understand why that is the case and how USADA begeles. I think it’s $60 million that the IOC gave 2028. came an example of success, we are joined by its CEO,And 2028 gave that money to the City of Los Ange- Travis Tygart, who has led the agency since 2007. Mr.
les to start some sports programs. And so, Parks and Tygart, I’m pleased to yield you five minutes to share
Rec have started to develop some programs, but there your testimony with the Commission.322
are programs really that are going to be at no cost to
kids. So, it’s the original programs that already exist, MR. TYGART: Thank you, Co-Chair. I want to thankbut they’re at no cost, and then the sports for disabled this Commission, obviously, for the opportunity to be
youth, there’s four of them—and I’m not sure if they’re here. It’s a true honor for me to represent the wonderreally going to be sustainable—are available right now, ful team at USADA and our small and independent
for some disabled youth to come and try some sports. board to be here to assist you and, hopefully, answer
I think one is sitting volleyball, one is wheelchair bas- any questions you have about the incredible and imketball, one is equestrian—which is really surprising, portant work that you all have before you.
because it’s probably the most expensive sport to do.
We are unique in the Olympic and Paralympic
So, also I want to say too is the coaches that we’ve had movement in that we’re a private organization, but
in the past in disabled sport, and that really pioneered we’re also authorized and recognized by the U.S.
322

Extended written testimony submitted by Travis Tygart appears following the live transcript on p. 237.

204

Appendix I

Congress as the national anti-doping organization for Olympic and Paralympic sport here in the
United States. And, while, you know, we certainly
appreciate that USADA’s not directly under thepurview of your study according to the Act, we’rehonored to have worked with the Commission overthe past several months and certainly look forward
to offering any insight we may have that can help
you in your purpose.

losing their moment on the podium. You’ve heard
the story of the U.S. figure-skating team, whose
podium moment continues to hang in purgatory
because the overdue case of a Russian figure skater
has yet to be resolved by a global system that hasdelayed justice so long that, effectively, this justicehas been denied.

These stories, unfortunately, go on and on and on.
All athletes deserve better, and, certainly, justice
The most important reason for our success is our demands better. Of course, even with the noblest
independence. The word ‘independent’ is thrown missions, the best governance structures, and adearound a lot in the Olympic and Paralympic move- quate resources, organizations are only as good as
ment. From our experience, however, the only true their culture. It is the people that make the teamdefinition of independence is that those who govern that make up the organization.
or otherwise make decisions affecting others cannot
have an interest, actual or perceived, in the outcome Obviously, the independent private-public modelof the decisions that they’re making. No USADA has worked for USADA, and, while we understandboard member or staff member can serve in any your review is not also looking at the global arena,
paid or voluntary governing or employment capacity we would recommend that you reconfirm that thiswith an organization that we provide services to. You independent model is essential for success at all
simply cannot have the fox guarding the hen house. levels of anti-doping work and integrity efforts. The
timing of your work could not be overstated.
Athletes have come to trust USADA because there’s
not a single decision we make that we don’t first ask As I’m sure you have heard and also realized, theourselves: ‘What is best for clean athletes?’ We view belief in institutions, particularly organizations forathletes and their powerful stories as our guiding sport, including governance and integrity acrosslight, as our North Star. We must ensure a properly the global sports landscape, could be at an all-time
structured and funded system both here in the Unit- low. Trust and confidence in sport integrity has
ed States as well as around the world to ensure that declined significantly in recent years and seems,
athletes that complete on the global playing field can unfortunately, only to be getting worse. The new
do so with integrity and can win the right way.
threats from legalized betting, now available inroughly thirty-seven states and the District of CoYou’ve heard the stories, unfortunately, of athletes lumbia, NIL pressures at the collegiate level, andwho’ve been adversely affected by systems that do the influx of extraordinary amounts of money into
not protect their rights. American shot-putter Adam sport at all levels in the U.S. and around the world
Nelson was awarded a gold medal nine years after has sport and athletes at an important crossroads.
the 2004 Athens Summer Olympic Games, when
the person that won the gold that day tested posi- To a large extent, the personal well-being of the next
tive. The most decorated Olympian in history, Mi- generation of athletes hangs in the balance. This ischael Phelps—in this very room, sitting right here in not just about elite Olympic and Paralympic ath2017—testified that, as a clean athlete, he always had letes. This is about every kid on a playground who
serious doubts about whether or not he was compet- grows up, who asks themselves: ‘what do I have to
ing on a global level playing field.
do to make my dreams come true?’ And the truth is,
if we as a movement—if we don’t push, if we don’t
Even as we all sit here today, there’s another group win on all the issues that affect athletes, we will likeof athletes that have been robbed of their rights and ly find ourselves back in this same position years
the irreparable damage that has been done by them from now, staring down another egregious scandal

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearingthat has abused athletes and robbed another generation of athletes in the process. And we’ll all bewondering why. Why didn’t we do more when we
had the chance? Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today, and I look forward to anyquestions you may have.
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you, Mr. Tygart. In ourstudy we’ve surveyed a large sample of movement
participants, including athletes, coaches, and sports
officials. Nearly eight in ten indicated that they
trust USADA. More than 40% completely trust theagency. What, in your view, has made USADA sohighly trusted across the movement.

205

COMMISSIONER KORB: Mr. Tygart, on the record I can say I do not miss that knock on the door
from the doping-control agent! In your testimony
you talk about USADA’s independence. If USADA
were funded through the USOPC, like SafeSportis, and not supported by Congressional appropriations through the White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy, what impact would that haveon your independence and on the amount of trust
USADA enjoys across the movement?
MR. TYGART: Yeah—and, Karin, thanks for thecomment prior to the question. And it’s incredible what our athletes go through that many people
don’t know, and the level of inconvenience and lackof privacy when we literally have your whereabouts
information 365 days a year. And our Olympic
athletes should be congratulated, and Paralympic
athletes should be congratulated, for the effort they
put into it. And the reason you did it, and manyother athletes in this country do it, is because it’s a
lot less inconvenient when they get on the podium
and they’ve lost to someone that’s cheated them. So,
thank you for your commitment in that regard, andit’s not easy, and we fully understand that and appreciate that and want to make it as easy as we can.

MR. TYGART: Well, thanks. Thanks for that, Han,
and obviously we’re incredibly humbled and honored and thankful for those results and that athletes
trust and have confidence in us and the programs
that we run. You know, I think we set out to simply
do the right thing for the right reasons. You know,
sometimes that’s popular, but, frankly, a lot of times
that’s not very popular. I mean, I can assure the leadership at the World Anti-Doping Agency right now
is still probably not very happy with us because wepush for reform and justice in the state-sponsored
Russian scandal and to hold Russia accountable andthe global anti-doping system accountable in a bet- You know, from an independent standpoint in
ter way that failed athletes, quite frankly.
funding, I think, I mean, obviously, the Center has,as I understand it, basically a $20 million guarantee,
But, you know, we don’t follow the polls, and we’re not maybe with no or very few strings attached. And,
here to do what’s politically convenient. We just stay at some level, I think that actually gives you comtrue, I think and I hope, to the commitment that we’ve plete independence. The appearance, however, andgiven to clean athletes, and I think having a fair, ac- the perception that that money’s coming from thecountable, transparent, consistent process—whether United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee,
you’re a global icon like Lance Armstrong or a week- so it’s sport, it raises the issues of the fox actually
end warrior under our jurisdiction, there’s no fear or guarding the hen house that I mentioned previousfavor in how the application of the rules happens. And, ly. So, I think it’s really important for folks to underI think, at the end of the day clean athletes have the stand the sources of funding and what’s attached tomost to lose when we’re not doing our job right. And, that funding.
I think, they have come to appreciate and respect thework that we do, because it’s their hard work, it’s their You know, our public-private model works, we
sacrifice, it’s their commitment to winning the right think, extremely well. It’s, in our opinion, the bestway, ultimately, that they need us to be successful in model here for what we do in the United States,order for their dreams to become a reality. Thanks.
but I can assure you there have been times in thepast, whether it was the Lance Armstrong case or
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Great, thank you. Commissioner our position against, you know, Russia’s state-sponKorb, I’ll yield to you.
sored doping, where both of our funders—both the

206

Appendix I

government folks, a few select politicians, as well
as some sport leaders in the United States—did notwant us doing the job that we did, and we had tomake a commitment—and our board did, and ourstaff did—that we’re going to have the resolve to
put ourselves out of business before we compromise the oath and the duty that we have sworn tothe millions of athletes that we’re here to protect.
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. I yield to Co-Chair
Koller for a follow-up.

athletes, not just here in the United States, but also
around the world—German Athletes Independent
Commission,323 for example—and we said we haveto go lock arms with clean athletes who are demanding, you know, justice and reform. So, justicefor the hundreds of individual athletes that wererobbed by this state-sponsored doping scheme, as
well as reform to the global system, to ensure athlete voice is better incorporated, and they actually
have a vote at the World Anti-Doping Agency, andmake it as independent as we possibly can.

CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you, Han. Mr. Tygart,it seems you testified that independence and athlete trust are really at the core of your success. We
have worked hard as our Commission processes
move forward—we’ve been very eager to hear directly from athletes on their experiences within the
movement and how their voices, or how they believe their voices, have been heard. Can you provide us with some examples of athlete feedback being directly incorporated into USADA’s operations?

That’s what led, I mentioned previously, to testimony by Michael Phelps here in this room. It was
a 2017 House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee that looked at what can be done from areform standpoint to the global effort, the World
Anti-Doping Agency. Still a lot of work to be done
there but certainly an example, I think, in line withyour question, where we heard directly from athletes and took the call and did what they expected
us to do in that environment.

MR. TYGART: Yeah, thanks for that, Dionne. Listen, we’re also eager, always, for athlete feedback
and find ways to seek it—surveys, small groupmeetings, interaction with the Team USA Athletes’
Commission. I would hope that everything we doin our program is a direct result of athlete feedback,or at the very least, if our staff is making a decisionor has a judgment call to make, they’re first asking themselves: ‘What’s the right answer based onwhat clean athletes would expect from us?’ So that’s
my hope, certainly, and that we would then follow
through with that and make sure that that is in linewith what athletes would expect.

CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you for that, andthank you, Mr. Tygart, for your testimony. That
concludes this session of the hearing. At this time,
we will recess for a short break, and we will reconvene at 3:00.
[BREAK]

CO-CHAIR KOLLER: I’d like to call this hearing
back to order. For our final session of the day, we havefour witnesses who can help us understand broader
trends in youth-sports participation, the view fromthe private sector, issues involving coaching, and how
other nations have structured movement governanceYou know, I think one example that’s led to great and oversight. With us for this session are Vincent
change around the world, not as much as we would Minjares, Project Manager at the Aspen Institute’s
hope for of course, but is when the media reported Sports & Society Program; Sally Nnamani, Co-Execand broke the state-sponsored doping scandal out utive Director for the United States at PeacePlayers;of Russia in late 2014. It, to a large extent, unfor- Jeremy Goldberg, the President of LeagueApps; andtunately, fell on deaf ears at the World Anti-Dop- Tom Farrey, the founder and Executive Director ofing Agency and within the global sports movement. the Aspen Institute’s Sports & Society Program, as
They wanted to limit it just to that investigation and well as a former sports journalist and author of the
not broaden the investigation, but at the time we 2007 book Game On: The All-American Race to Make
met with individual athletes we met with groups of Champions of Our Children.
323

The witness is referring here to Athleten Deutschland e.V.

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

I would also like to note that Katrina Piercy fromthe U.S. Department of Health & Human Services,
representing the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, & Nutrition, has submitted written testimony, which will appear in the record alongside othertestimony from this session.324 As a reminder, allwitnesses are asked to keep to five minutes for their
prepared testimony, and as you can see from thetimers on the wall in front of you, we are doing ourbest to keep to that. I will now yield each of you fiveminutes. Mr. Minjares?
DR. MINJARES: Good afternoon, distinguishedmembers of the Commission. I am Dr. Vincent
Minjares, Project Manager with the Sports & Society Program of the Aspen Institute. Thank you forthe opportunity to provide testimony on the futureof sports in America, particularly the state of youth
coaching. Admittedly, I bring a diverse perspective
to today’s hearing. When I started coaching at eighteen, I knew I’d found a service to many families,
particularly in under-served communities. Sport
coaching quickly became a calling, then a career,
but not in the way I thought.

207

suffer a range of chronic diseases—including thirteen types of cancer—more likely to be active parents, and as role models are more likely to have active kids. Our mental-health crisis: kids who playsports are less likely to suffer from anxiety and depression and more likely to enjoy life. Through its
Healthy People 2030 initiative, the federal government has set a target of 63.3% participation in organized sports for youth ages six to seventeen, but
only 50.7% of children played in 2020-21, the mostrecent year of available federal data. That was the
middle of the pandemic. Even before, the rate wasjust 56%.

Now, let’s look at the three populations of interest to the Commission: females, minorities, andindividuals with disabilities. Only 48% of girls
played, five percentage points less than boys. The
gaps were even wider among minorities, including
black—42%, Hispanic—40%, and Native Americanand Native Hawaiian youth—34%. Among youth
with special needs, just 43% of kids played. Now,
improving the state of youth coaching isn’t the only
solution to lifting these numbers. It is an important one though, because coaches are key agents in
Rather than earn a living as a coach, I became a keeping kids involved in sports and delivering thecoaching researcher, first at U.C. Berkeley then in- benefits of participation we seek.
ternationally. My quest was to understand how wedevelop the next generation of coaches, educated, In fact, research consistently demonstrates how
youth-focused, and well-versed in core competen- coaches shape the experience of sport, whichcies? For most of the last ten years, I’ve lived in New strongly influences decisions to join, stay, or quit.
Zealand, a Pacific nation committed to coaching re- For example, we know that lack of enjoyment is asearch and recognized internationally for innova- major factor in youth-sports dropout. Interestingly,
tion in coach development. While in New Zealand, when researchers ask what makes it fun, kids point
I earned my Ph.D. in coaching and worked in the out many coaching behaviors, such as praise, staycoaching sector, including as a coach trainer, de- ing positive through mistakes, and being easy tosigner of coaching programs, and consultant on na- talk to. Regardless of player ability, we know thattional consulting strategy. I share this background coaches impact motivation. However, too manyto help you understand the context for my testimo- coaches behave in destructive ways, including—but
ny and hope that my perspective aids the important not limited to—abuse. Studies of team climate inwork of this Commission.
competitive sports show that coaches can kill the
intrinsic motivation needed to reach one’s personTo begin, allow me to briefly step back and set the al best, often through favoritism or being too conscene on youth sport and physical activity in Amer- trolling. Given the incredible power that coaches
ica. First, the research is unequivocal. Active kids can wield over athletes, our system cannot contindo better in life. They’re one tenth as likely to have ue to take their work for granted.
obesity, more likely to go to college, less likely to
324

Written testimony submitted by Katrina Piercy appears following the live transcript on p. 240.

208

Appendix I

Unfortunately, our sports ecosystem has never truly made coach development a priority, especially at
the grassroots level. Relative to other leading nations, this leaves us behind. To illustrate this point,consider New Zealand—and I’d ask to advance theslides to the New Zealand slide. Sport New Zealand is the national agency responsible for grassroots-sport development, including coach development. In partnership with the agency responsible
for high-performance sport and their affiliatednational governing bodies, Sport New Zealand develops a community-sport coaching plan, which isseparate from but aligned to a high-performancecoaching plan. Importantly, both plans are underpinned by a theory of coaching development andaligned to a national coaching strategy, which outlines coaching communities and pathways. NGBs
and other sport-governing bodies draw upon theplans to build development programs for their affiliated coaches, including licensing requirements,
online resources, and on-the-ground support.
Through funding and strategic guidance, Sport New
Zealand helps them reach the targeted outcomes,
such as growing the coach-developer workforce or
recruiting women into coaching.

system. Let’s start with a clear, overarching vision
for coaching in this country. Drawing on our assets, such as the American Development Modelor the National Standards for Sports Coaches, we
can build a national coaching strategy that drills
into what coaches should be competent in, when,and how. In partnership with appropriate governing bodies, the creation of coaching plans for recreation-, club-, school-, and national-team settings
could then align our communities around a set ofcommonsense minimum standards and incentivize
benchmarks for continuing education. A national registry can help track progress while also generating a database for research insights related tocoaching demographics, training levels, and youth
outcomes.

Let’s also explore ways to better support coaches.
For example, tax deductions for coaching costs,
such as gas, equipment, or training can ease theburden on a primarily volunteer workforce. Similarly, let’s stop leaving coaches on an island. Growing our own grassroots coach-development workforce would go a long way towards providing theon-the-ground support that researchers know help
coaches learn and grow. Finally, if we are to close
For Western democracies, this kind of coordinated, the gaps in access referenced at the top, we need tointeragency planning is indicative of a well-devel- increase the size and diversity of the coaching comoped sport-coaching policy. But not in the U.S., not munity. That begins with recruiting more women,
especially for community coaches. While we have coaches for disabled youth, minorities, and people
many training courses, licensing programs, and from low-income backgrounds. The time is now toresources throughout the ecosystem, they operate build a coaching community that reflects the comin silos, devoid of any guiding policy, program, or munities they serve and can deliver on the promise
accountability system. This is incredibly true in the of sport for American society. Thank you.
world of coach licensing and certification, where
NGBs, state high-school associations, and others CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you, Dr. Minjares.
differ widely in their requirements, curriculum, and Ms. Nnamani?
delivery. The result: not enough coaches trained
and competent in key issues, like mental health. MS. NNAMANI: Hello. It’s really an honor to be
In a recent national survey of 10,000 coaches, we a part of this process, not only representing myfound that 70% cited low confidence in their abili- organization, PeacePlayers, but representing thety to help athletes navigate their presence on social wide sports-based youth-development communimedia and link to mental-health resources.
ty. Again, my name is Sally Nnamani, and I am the
Co-Executive Director of PeacePlayers United States,
It doesn’t have to be this way. The U.S. is home to where our mission is to use the power of sport toincredible thought leadership in both coaching equip young people with the resources, skills, andand coach development. The time is now for a se- experiences to lead in their communities, to build
rious national dialogue on how we improve our more-peaceful and more-thriving communities. We

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

do this by increasing access to high-quality community-basketball programming, centered on leadership development, conflict transformation, andglobal engagement. I personally have worked at theintersection of sport, social impact, and community
development for over a decade, both here in the U.S.
and globally. Our award-winning programs are oneof the few year-round, no-cost programs that areserving young people who have been left behind by
the current youth-sports system.

209

New York, we have built a grassroots girls’ basketball pipeline from third grade all the way throughhigh school that includes girls of various skill level
and is also part of this wider ecosystem of organizations providing access to girls and adult women to
sport, so our girls are able to see what a trajectoryin sport can look like when they become adults andalso have access to positive role models.

In L.A., where many community centers have succumbed to the pay-to-play system and are conI share my testimony today as a leader of an orga- stantly booked for private sessions—and also havenization that makes sport accessible to over 2,000 been priced out of their local community cenyoung people across five major cities in some of the ters—we are working with our local Los Angeles
least-resourced neighborhoods in our country. I Rec and Parks to offer our programs to make theiralso share my testimony as an immigrant kid who gyms accessible. In Detroit, we facilitate quarterly
grew up in the youth-sports system from middle community conversations in partnership with theschool all the way through college, and I can attest Detroit Pistons, Detroit Public Schools, and otherto the barriers and also the life-changing impact local stakeholders to identify gaps and collaboratethat having had access to sport has had on me.
on solutions affecting youth-sports and the wider
Detroit community.
The youth-sports system in America, as it exists today,
has failed millions of young people. The over-invest- These are a few out of many examples of how Peacement in competitive athletics marginalizes the late Players and other organizations like ours are putting
bloomer. It marginalizes young girls who are curi- a band-aid on the wound. We believe in the powerous about sport but do not have a safe space to learn of collective action across various stakeholders, inwhere they’re not judged. It marginalizes low-income cluding government, in moving the needle towards
families and young people with disabilities.
more access for all young people, especially young
people of color, girls, and youth with disabilities.
So, you see, reforming the youth-sports system is not We’ve already begun this work over the last six-plus
just an access issue. It’s a basic-fairness issue. In fact, years at this point, through our partnership withit’s a social-justice issue, when you think about the Nike, the Kellogg Foundation, NBA Foundation,
young people who are not included in sport and who and a number of local stakeholders, where we are
do not have the opportunity to reap the social, eco- centering investment and access from childhood all
nomic, and health benefits of having played sports. the way until early adulthood, economic opportuI am the thirty-five-year-old adult version of the nity, and supporting young people in their journey
young people that we’re trying to include in sports, to leadership in their communities.
and I can tell you that it’s because I played sports thatI’m the person that I am today and feeling a sense of With all of what I’ve shared, I would love to shareempowerment around pursuing my goals.
a set of recommendations as you all build out yourreport to submit to Congress. The sports-based
Where the system has fallen short, communi- youth involvement and the community-sports orty-sports organizations like PeacePlayers and many ganizations do not exist outside of the youth-sports
others are stepping in to fill in the barriers. In the ecosystem. We are part of it. We’re not adjacentSouth Side of Chicago, we regularly provide trans- to it, and it’s important that we are integrated into
portation for young people to get to programming those conversations and that investment reaches
because of safety issues and also because of a short- these organizations. It’s important that we invest
age of facilities in their neighborhoods. In Brooklyn, in local collective-action efforts, increasing youth-

210

Appendix I

sports access and quality of sporting experiences.
There are a number of these coalitions in places like
Chicago, New York, New Orleans—where the Laureus Sport for Good Cities are working—the PLAY
Sports Coalition that also serves Massachusetts andMaryland. And then, lastly, support the Personal
Health Investment Today Act,325 which allows pretax flexible- and medical-savings accounts to coverphysical-activity expenses, effectively reducing theout-of-pocket expenses for American families andindividuals for youth-sports fees, health-club dues,
training costs, and much more.
I’d love to close with a story of a group of young people
I had the opportunity to coach a couple years ago in
Brownsville, Brooklyn. Brownsville, if you’re familiar
or not familiar, is a small neighborhood in Brooklyn,
and it is the highest concentration of housing developments in the Americas. Not a lot of opportunity, not a
lot of access to high-quality sports, and not a lot of rolemodels. So, I had the opportunity to coach these middle-school girls, and they just wanted a space to play.
They were not really interested in competition at thetime. They just wanted a place to get better at a sportthat they enjoyed. And, over time, I got to learn about
just some of the challenges these young girls faced, including some people had experienced homelessness
at some point. Many of them were already taking careof younger siblings, and many of them just had a tonof barriers to even show up to programming—and
those barriers included transportation.

CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you, Ms. Nnamani.
Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Ladies and gentlemen of theCommission, it is an honor to appear before you today. You know, more than twenty-five years ago, I
was roaming these halls on Capitol Hill when I had
the privilege of serving as an intern for the late, great
Senator from Indiana, Dick Lugar. And I had a criticalresponsibility as an intern in that I was supposed togo reserve the softball fields at three in the afternoon
for a few hours in front of the Washington Monument. And, every week, I was reminded of the powerof sports to bring people together across every conceivable division.
My own sports experience, as well as the data fromleading experts like the Aspen Institute, make it clearthat playing sports creates advantages that help you
win at life. But the data also tells us that way too many
children are not able to access those benefits. There’sa reason why Nelson Mandela extolled passionately
about the power of sports to change the world, andI think the work of this Commission, the work of allof us, really reflects this critical question: if sports has
this kind of awesome power, what does it say about
the responsibility of all of those who have the powerover sport?

You know, my insights and perspective on youth
sports is reflecting all the different roles that I play. I’ma youth-sports parent. I’m the co-founder and PresWe reduced those barriers by offering the programs ident of LeagueApps, a sports-technology company,
directly in their schools. Later on, their principal started two youth-sports nonprofits focused on acwould share with me that being involved in Peace- cess—as Co-Chair and co-founder of the Play Sports
Players was, by far, one of the biggest impact in their Coalition and Fun Play Foundation. I’m also a memlives. This summer, a lot of those girls graduated high ber of the Project Play 2024 group. And all of thoseschool. A couple of them are going to university. Many different perspectives has given me conviction thatof them were considering dropping out of school in when the youth-sports sector is discussed, the focus
the sixth, seventh grade. This is the power of sport. I is frequently on the national governing bodies and assaid earlier that I am the adult version of a lot of the sociations. And, to be sure, there is a critical role foryoung people that we’re trying to reach. When young them to play, but often missed is the central role ofpeople have access to sport, we can change their life’s hundreds of thousands of youth-sports organizations
trajectory, and we can make economic opportunity as the delivery mechanism for youth sports.
available to young people so they can transform theircommunities. Thank you, and I’m looking forward to The makeup of these organizations has changed
your questions.
dramatically. Youth sports is no longer largely
325

H.R. 1582, introduced in the 118th Congress on March 14, 2023.

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

driven by volunteer-led community organizations
comprising the majority of member organizations
that are associated with national governing bodies. Instead, the youth-sports industry is really ina transition from a hobby to a profession. And you
also have the deeper engagement of professional
leagues, professional teams, as well as consolidation being driven by investment capital and theproliferation of franchise models. The structuralshifts in how youth sports is organized is only being
hastened by the way that these organizations will
harness technology to improve how they operatein scale, how they run their programs, how they’recoached—and that’s before the full impact of augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and even
AI. Inevitable.

211

75,000 participants, and they’ve actually increased
participation by more than 300% during that time.
I’m reminded of a student from Bowling Green thatshowed up in our office a decade ago with a visionof a sports program. Now, that vision is a reality:
RallyCap Sports, which is serving thousands of kids
annually with special needs across twenty different
universities. We obviously heard about PeacePlayers
and they kind of reach they’re having. For organizations to have this kind of change, there’s a level ofknowledge, training, and professionalism that is required as well as the accountability that goes with it.

Companies serving the youth-sports space should
also embrace their responsibilities. At LeagueApps,
we’ve committed 1% of our revenue to supporting
The evolution of the youth-sports industry has pro- access to youth sports as well as providing free softfound implications on the sector. To be sure, the ware license to nonprofits through Fun Play Founorganizations with greater capacity are investing dation. There’s also a critical need for institutional
more in coaching and training and safety, and the change. New approaches to governance should
vast majority are well-intended and deeply commit- center the role and support the role of youth-sports
ted. But it’s also clear there is no coherent youth- organizations using standards and incentives tosports system in this country.
improve their capacity and quality. And the federal
government should be allocating more resources toFirst, there is a lack of governance with no real support the needs of the very organizations that are
structure or standards that stewards youth-sports working directly with kids.
experiences in this country. Instead of the COVID
pandemic offering a moment to re-establish the An example of what is needed is H.R. 8552,326 whichleadership and influence of governing bodies in as- is the bipartisan PLAYS in Youth Sports Act, sponsociation, the crisis crystallized their lack of author- sored by Representatives Allred, Fitzpatrick, andity, resources, and capabilities, which reveal itself Wasserman Schultz. That bill authorizes $75 million
every day in the inconsistencies around safety and in grant funding to go directly to youth-sports nonquality. Second, there is a widening gap in terms of profits. I urge the Commission to add passage of thisaccess to sport for underserved communities. The bill to the list of recommendations to Congress.
youth-sports sector is severely under-resourced,
both in terms of governance but even more so at Lastly, this Commission has an opportunity to makethe local level in terms of organizations, programs, sure policymakers and decisionmakers appreciate
the importance of youth sports that goes well beand play spaces.
yond a game. You should be encouraging legislators
The promise of this Commission is to address these to incorporate sports participation as an essential
issues and galvanize cross-sector support. There is tool in education as well as combating mental- andan important role for the private sector. The focus of physical-health crises. I thank the Commission forany strategy should be recognizing and supporting your leadership, and, on behalf of my colleagues atorganizations at the grassroots that are key agents of LeagueApps, Fun Play Foundation, the Play Sports
change. Take the Los Angeles Dodgers’ RBI program. Coalition, we stand ready to play our part. ThankOver the past decade, they have served more than you, and I look forward to your questions.
326

This was the bill’s number in the 117th Congress. In the 118th Congress, the PLAYS in Youth Sports Act has been assigned H.R. 4599.

212

Appendix I

CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you, Mr. Goldberg. for personal growth, to be treated with dignity, to
Mr. Farrey?
simply play.
MR. FARREY: Members of the Commission, thankyou so much for having me. As mentioned, I am
the founder and the leader of Project Play, which
has convened many organizations over the past ten
years. It’s now a group of about 20,000 leaders who
we have a conversation with. We basically aim tofacilitate conversation about how to build healthy
children and communities through sports. But
this all started fifteen years ago with a book that I
wrote, back when I was at ESPN, called Game On:
The All-American Race to Make Champions of Our
Children, which was a work of investigative journalism that asked: can we really be the world’s sports
superpower if most of our kids are pushed out of
the system by age twelve, if just one in four are getting enough physical activity? And what’s with all
the abuse and the preventable injuries that we see
kids who are still in the game suffering?

We have a framework. The “Children’s Bill of Rights
in Sports” is a statement drafted through Project
Play that has been endorsed by 200 organizations,
including the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee and most of the national governing bodies
of sports. What most haven’t done—and can’t dounder the current Sports Act—is change their business model to prioritize mass participation andsupport for quality programs. They’re beholden
to corporate sponsors more interested in media
stars who can draw eyeballs to products. That’s whyeach NGB submits a high-performance plan to the
USOPC, which then distributes more than $110
million annually to help podium-potential athletes.
It’s a commitment to individual excellence, which isgood. But it’s also a recipe for dysfunction without
an even-greater commitment to systems excellence.

You saw the research that my colleague Vince Minjares highlighted that has now been amassed that
active kids simply do better in life. A virtuous cycle can be unleashed if we can simply get them off
the couch or get them off their phones and into thegame without running them into the ground. But
this isn’t going to happen without incentives for
programs to get and keep every kid in the game orwithout adherence and accountability to best practices in athlete development or without honoring
the human rights every child is born with: it’s a safeand healthy environment to an equal opportunity

The work of this Commission is important. Our Aspen
program has studied the governance structure of sports
systems in ten peer countries, research we will publish
next month. A preview: every country deals with theissues we face here in the U.S. They are not unique.
And all, except for perhaps China, rely on community-based programs and mostly—Jeremy’s right, the environment is changing—but volunteers still make a lotof these programs go. There is no perfect system. That’s
one thing we found. But those that are most effective
connect the treetops to the grassroots.

What we need is for every NGB to submit a grassSo, when I peeled back the layers, I found a failure roots-performance plan—or a GPP as I would call it. Aof sports governance, of policy. I wrote a chapter on grassroots-performance plan would include a strategy
the 1978 Amateur Sports Act, which tasked the U.S. in reporting, verified by a third party, on efforts to growOlympic Committee and affiliated NGBs with (A) participation rates, to recruit youth from under-represelecting and supporting teams that represent our sented populations, to improve coach quality, to partnercountry and (B) coordinating and developing par- with schools, to prevent all forms of abuse—emotional,
ticipation opportunities down to the community physical, and sexual. Put whatever you want in there—level. But it was an unfunded mandate, and within a efforts to promote injury prevention, multi-sport play,
few years the USOPC was telling Congress explicit- no games on Mother’s Day?—and raise another $110
ly that it can’t both get Americans off the couch and million or $500 million that gets distributed based on
onto the podium, that it lacked the resources and the quality of the NGB’s GPP. Then redistribute muchthe authority to do so. And they were right. And I of that money to community programs that align withthink it’s time we listened.
best practices and deliver results.

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

Here that would start with registration, a database of
all programs that offer the sport, which of them aretraining coaches and meeting minimum program
standards. Help families find the trusted providers.
They can’t do that right now. And reward registeredorganizations with, I don’t know, free FBI-quality
background checks, access to grants, insurance discounts—this is a way that U.S.A. Hockey, back inthe 1990s, began to organize their pipeline effectively - and a greater voice in NGB governance. Thisis how you better coordinate amateur-sport activity across the landscape. NGB’s need to be held
accountable as well to serve the interest of publichealth.
If the USOPC does not want or is not a good fit for
the grassroots role anymore, then oversight needs
to go to another entity. Options could include an
office within the U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services, could be a quasi-governmental agency or entity akin to the U.S. Anti-Doping
Agency or the U.S. Center for SafeSport, or anothernot-for-profit with the necessary focus, expertise,resources, and independence to do the job. Thatbody should be guided by a national sports policy,
which we don’t have, developed with input fromstakeholders across key sectors. Public and private
funding streams can and should be identified tosupport this essential work.
There is a better future for sports in America—
please believe that—and it starts with policy. Rewrite the Amateur Sports Act and center the needsof youth and communities—and watch everythingthat sits on top of that base flourish. More athletes,
better athletes, and—yes—more Olympic andParalympic inspiration. Thank you for your time,and happy to take any questions.
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you to all the witnesses
for your testimony. I’ll yield first to Commissioner
Cohen.

213

access across the nation—and also where gaps
might exist that we need to focus on.
MS. NNAMANI: I mean, data is a challenge within the sport-for-development space, right? Because
we recognize the impact that we’re trying to haveit’s a long-term game. And so, in the U.S., we’re
about five and a half years out. And, I always say, if
you count the COVID years, we’re about two anda half, three years out. So, we’re very young. And,however, we’re part of a global organization thathas over twenty years of experience working in
post-conflict and active-conflict regions and using
sports to bridge divides.
And so, for example, our work in Israel and Palestine, we had an eight-year randomized controlled
trial study that measured the effectiveness of using
sport as a tool for bridge-building and developing
young people as leaders. And a lot of the lessons
learned from there has informed our work in the
U.S. When we first started up in the U.S., the University of Michigan worked with us on running a
study to better understand, like, where are the gaps
in the communities we’re hoping to work in. And
we learned that, one, there’s lots of playgrounds,
but a lot of them sit empty because of gun violence—gun and gang violence. Second, there arecommunity centers that have a ton of programs,
but it’s hard to attract young people to attend programs in their community center. And, kind of in
relation to what was shared around coaching, there
are gaps in how young people are coached at thegrassroots level. And there’s a need for adults who
are working with young people to have access tothe professional development and the opportunity
to recognize how to properly use sport as a tool for
positive outcomes and for youth development.

So, we’re learning a ton as we’re going. We havecurrently our system is really around tracking our
young people in the long term. So, every young person who’s entering a PeacePlayers program takes
COMMISSIONER COHEN: Hi. My question is for part in a baseline study that seeks to understandMs. Nnamani. PeacePlayers operates in many cities where they’re at currently in terms of, like, theirand states across our country, and I’m just wonder- leadership skills, their self-efficacy, their self-esing if you’re able to track the data and trends that teem. And, each year, they’re taking part in thatgive us a sense for youth participation and sports same survey. So, we’re able to measure the change

214

Appendix I

and impact that’s happening over a period of time. that came up quite a bit in the Women’s World Cup,
So, we recognize that this is a long-term game. which is ACL-injury prevention. You know, we’ve
And so, I think, over the next five years, five to ten learned through our work in this space that there’s
years, we’ll be able to share in real terms where the two decades of research into effective, proven solugaps really are and what we’ve learned in working tions. We know it’s a complex issue. We know thatin these under-resourced communities that have a there’s a lot of factors involved. But what we’ve
ton of potential, especially human potential.
learned is that preventative training, neuromuscular training, is really, really effective. In controlled
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. Commissioner Cis- studies, we see 50% to 80% reduction in risk. The
neros Prevo has a couple of questions for our wit- problem has been implementation, and implemennesses. So, I’ll yield to her.
tation means coaches. Coaches are a key actor in
the design of training sessions, particularly warCOMMISSIONER CISNEROS PREVO: First to mup, which is the place where we tend to want to
Mr. Farrey, do you believe that the USOPC is ca- promote preventative practices.
pable of overseeing the coordination and development of youth and grassroots sports in our coun- But, when you study coaches and their attitudes
try, as Congress has directed under current statute, to prevention in this space, we get answers like: ‘Ieven if it had more funding?
don’t have enough time,’ ‘I don’t understand thetraining,’ ‘I’m not sure it’s my responsibility,’ ‘isn’t it
MR. FARREY: Not under the current statute. someone else’s responsibility?’ So, when you think
Look, we’ve worked with the U.S. Olympic Com- about that piece and knowing that ACL-injury premittee. There are many wonderful people there vention has a proven starting point—not the soluwho want to do the right thing, but the law is not tion of the issue—what we need, what we can dowritten in a manner that allows them to have suffi- through a facilitated program of coach educationcient level of authority over the grassroots. It just and development, much like we’ve done with consays, ‘coordinate amateur sports activity, set some cussion, because, I think, with concussion we’venational goals.’ But how? I mean, this is language really made massive strides around coach trainingthat was written nearly fifty years ago. It was our and education. This is another example where, if
first attempt at sport governance in this country. It we can get coaches simply implementing the prowas a start, but we can do much better.
gramming that we know research that has demonstrated is effective, we can see a dramatic reduction
COMMISSIONER CISNEROS PREVO: All right. in injury risk because it’s actually one of the few
My next question is for Dr. Minjares. What is a de- controllables we have on this injury. But we need
fined problem that we see in youth sports that could coach buy-in. And in order to get coach buy-in, we
be significantly minimized if coaches were trained need training. We need support. We need endorseand supported to implement leading practices?
ment. We need mandates. There’s a whole subset
of, kind of, collective support around this issue thatDR. MINJARES: Thank you for the question. I’ll we would need for coaches. ACL injury prevention
preface my answer by saying that coaching is a would be a good one.
field that really struggles with research-to-practicetranslation, and we have a number of really import- CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. Commissioner
ant issues across the sector. Some of them are al- Fitzgerald Mosley, I’ll yield to you for your quesready mentioned, relating to abuse in terms of trau- tions.
ma-informed practices, but also in areas relating topedagogy and even the way in which coaches learn COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY: Enthemselves. There’s an entire field of research into grossed in your answer. Lost track of time. So, Mr.
coach learning and development.
Goldberg, I have a question for you. I want to know
But the issue I would highlight is an interesting one what changes you’re seeing in terms of participa-

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

215

tion opportunities and the regulations of the youth- experience around quality and accountability, insports experience that are a result of the increasing which those organizations that are trying to repliprivatization of youth sports.
cate—especially ones that are bringing more professional staff and training—have the promise or
MR. GOLDBERG: One thing that comes to mind is, the potential to create higher-quality programs andas someone who works at the intersection of sports higher adherence to kind of safety protocols.
and technology, I think of the Steve Jobs quote where
he was quoting Wayne Gretzky, which is: you’ve got But I’ll leave you with this thought because, no matto “skate to where the puck is going.” And so, first of ter what is happening in the private sector, there
all, to kind of think about the landscape, I think it’s are still gaps. And, during COVID when we startto anticipate that this system is dynamic, not static, ed the Play Sports Coalition, we literally created
and that we’re in the middle of really an evolutionary a Google document to crowdsource what organiperiod of how youth sports is currently operating in zations, governing bodies were doing in response
this country. A lot of that is driven by privatization, to COVID. And that was what was governing how
and one of the trends we see a lot of is consolidation. people were trying to figure out how to respond,
because there was no authority providing that kindSo, for example, what we’ve seen through our own of guidance and insight. And so, it was literally peoresearch at LeagueApps is that about 75% of all the ple trying to figure it out on their own. And I thinkprogrammatic spending in this country in youth we can do better.
sports is now concentrated in less than 20% of allorganizations, and you can also look in terms of COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY:
growth and participation where the growth of or- Thanks. I have a follow-up question. And having, youganizations is typically happening in organizations know, been alongside you in creating this Play Sports
with much greater scale and size. That is only accel- Coalition, it’s been a slog. But I think we’re finally makerating because there’s a lot more investment capital ing some progress. I wanted to see—my follow-up
coming into the market, a lot of private-equity dol- question to Mr. Farrey is going to be around this nalars coming into the market, a lot more franchise-re- tional sports policy that you were talking about. But
lated models. And you also have the deeper engage- how- how do we merge the two together, this privatment of the professional leagues and teams related ization of youth sports, and provide the proper goverto youth sports.
nance, oversight, accountability that’s required? How
do we incorporate them? Because it seems as if that’s
So, what are the implications of this, the changes? something that was missing out of the initial Amateur
On participation, there’s the potential for growing Sports Act in the oversight this required to put theparticipation, especially if that energy is focused horses back in the barn or start that process at least.
on more recreational and participatory experience.
So, if you look at programs like MLB’s RBI program MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. So, a couple things. I thinkthat I cited earlier or what the NBA is doing with Sally mentioned this, which is the first way to approach
rec leagues or even NHL is doing with their Learn to it is to start to break down the artificial distinctions
Play program, you have the ability to grow the game that we created within youth sports. Right? The difby the engagement of the private sector that has a ference between a sports-based youth-development
strategic interest in more participation. And even— organization and a private organization shouldn’t be
the more innovation that’s happening, especially all that different, right? Every organization, if they’re
where we see these franchises emerging, is happen- focused on youth sports, should be focused on sportsing at the base of that pyramid as opposed to only based development. And there’s a lot of practices
the most competitive aspect of sport.
around how those organizations operate in the private sector that might be able to replicate and support
In terms of regulation of experience, I’d almost re- how sports-based youth-development organizations
frame that to talk about the standardization of that are scaling.

216

Appendix I

So, first of all, is the idea of a 501(c)(3) or for-profit—it’s just a tax distinction. The real question is:
are those programs operating with the highest levels of standard and quality. And, I think, when wetalk about the professionalization of youth sports,
the kids need to be amateurs. They have to be kids.
But the adults have to be professionals, right? They
need to be trained. There needs to be accountability.
And I think that’s where there’s an opportunity forcollaboration and partnership. Where the governing bodies and associations, I think, have the ability
to help set those standards, help provide that kindof certification or requirements and incentives, andthen empower the grassroots to be able to deliver
those programs to meet to those standards.

very valuable, starting with the government. It canhelp guide, you know, government grant funding. It
can guide inter-agency cooperation, development
of data, how you begin to think about sport governance at the NGB or other levels. So, I think thatneeds to happen, and it needs to be something ofa consensus process. The key stakeholders need to
be around a table and really identify what a goodsport policy ought to be. And then there ought tobe some entity within the government, maybe it’s
within HHS or otherwise, that guides the process
and does all that coordination.

I also think that policy can help think about whatthat overarching confederation of sport, that NGBs
can report to with these grassroots-performance
But I think that there’s a lot of well-intended people, plans that I’m a big fan of—it can guide that. It canthat people can work together all aligned with the guide the type of criteria that you put into suchgoal towards access and higher quality. And I’m op- a document and, you know, set up the reporting
timistic that that can happen, and I think this Com- around it.
mission represents that.
COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY:COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY:
Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Farrey, in your testimony you talked about the need for a national sports policy, and
CO-CHAIR XIAO: I’ll yield now to Commissioner
so I’m wondering: how do you think this should be Hogshead.
formulated, the policy?
COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: Yes. My quesMR. FARREY: Yeah, and let me, by the way—I tion is for Mr. Minjares. Did I pronounce that right?
meant to make a point to your question earlier. In
our research, when you asked if the USOPC is the DR. MINJARES: Yes. Thank you.
entity to still run the grassroots, in our research often systems around the world, what we found is COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: So often, whenno other country asked the Olympic committee to we hear about youth sports, we usually hear, well,organize the grassroots. They usually sit next to it. we often hear about it when they’ve been accused
They’re part of a confederation among other stake- of abuse. And I was wondering what impact that
holders, but no one says the Olympic committee that has had on youth sports and their willingness
should be the entity to do this, much less with no to be trained or the…
money to do so. So, I wanted to make sure I get that
into the record.
COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD MOSLEY:
Youth coaches?
So, a national policy, I think, is important because
it begins to set the priorities. Like, why do we do COMMISSIONER HOGSHEAD: Yeah, yeah,
sports in this country? Is it for child development? yeah. Youth coaches. Like, what impact does that
Is it community development? Is it entertainment? have with all these stories coming forward?
What is it for? There are lots of reasons we want toprioritize sports. So, a statement, a national policy, DR. MINJARES: Fantastic research question foron why we’re doing sports in this country can be a researcher out there, I would say. My response

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

would be a few things. One, that, in general, there
is a tendency for training coursework—if we think
about sort of the reaction of coaches to, you know,
things like mandatory trainings or what have you—there’s already a disposition among primarily a volunteer base: ‘Why do I have to do extra stuff? Thisis already hard enough. I hardly have enough time.’
So, I think, one challenge is dealing with a perception as a community that you are not good at what
you do or that you are out to get someone or thatyou—and I think coaches, this is sort of part of thischallenge, I think of how we positioned coaches inthe youth-sports landscape.

217

when there’s a story that positions coaches as being
this evil person, and—admittedly so, some of thesestories are obviously real—but not every coach isthat. And I think there’s a need for us to not jump
immediately to accountability and training, but toalso think about that in relation to support and help.
And I think those things need to be working in harmony together.
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. I’ll yield to Commissioner Korb.

COMMISSIONER KORB: Ms. Nnamani. It’s abeautiful name. Ms. Nnamani, you mentioned that
So, on the one hand, you have coaches who are fac- in developing youth programs, you’ve worked in
ing the already, sort of, intimidating piece of parents’, partnership with organizations including the NBA
kind of, criticism. Certainly the challenge of making and companies like Nike. In your experience, does
the experience work within your time and your life- the USOPC and its governing bodies, specificallystyle. But also, this sort of question of ‘am I alone in U.S.A. Basketball, share an active and/or visible
this and do I have any support?’ And I know coaches role in grassroots- and youth-sports development
have a tendency to be very siloed, to be kind of off in the communities where you and your colleagues
on their own doing their own thing, but we also set and your team have been working?
them up that way. We sort of hired them. We say:‘Here’s your bag of balls,’ or ‘Here’s your field, go off MS. NNAMANI: I believe there’s been—in recent
and do your thing.’ And I think there’s already, in this years definitely—there’s been a ton of investments
case, like, a set of barriers to engaging with an infra- in the grassroots space. I think, you know, organistructure of support and training.
zations and companies recognize there’s a business
opportunity in investing in grassroots sports. So,
It’s not a culture. We don’t have a culture of contin- you see organizations like the Junior NBA, U.S.A.
uous learning. We don’t have a culture of coaches Basketball has—there are a number of initiatives.
wanting to embrace getting better and learning. And For example, Junior NBA has the Her Time to Play
it’s a function of, admittedly, a lot of different fac- initiative, which is really centered around getting
tors. And, I would argue, that this is one of the main more girls to play. And we partner with them onreasons way we need to be more intentional about a number of events they host throughout the year.
cultivating not just a scheme or a structure but a way Dick’s Sporting Goods is another group that does aof thinking about the place of coaches, the way in ton of work around that.
which they grow and develop. Coaches are deserving
not just of, you know, accountability, which I think But I would have to speak about Nike, who has been
we all jump to immediately when we see a negative our core partner in this work. And I think Nikestory, but they’re deserving of support. And one of has been intentional in investing in the grassroots
the things we’ve learned internationally is I do think space from multiple places, right, from a systemthere’s a more-robust approach to simply support- ic standpoint, from a grassroots standpoint. And I
ing coaches usually on the ground through a coach can share a number of examples. Nike has the Grow
developer, which is a professional status that’s not as Our Game initiative, which they’ve paused recentcommon in this country.
ly due to the pandemic. But that initiative allowed
young people to work with their local NBA teams
And so, I think, you know, there’s just simply a whole to identify gaps in their communities around girls
subset of issues that coaches are already facing. And participating in sports and begin to recommend

218

Appendix I

solutions on how communities, the NBA, and Nike
can collaborate about increasing participation.
That initiative is not just invested in access, it’s also
giving young people an agency and opportunity
to look around and say: ‘Well, what role can I playin imparting change in my community?’ Which I
think is very important, because many young people do not believe that their voices are part of thisprocess or that it’s even welcome in this process. So,
when there’s opportunity—and real opportunity—
for them to contribute, I think that’s very important. So, that’s from a grassroots perspective.

jurisdiction. So, how do these private-sector youthsports organizations protect the safety of participants when it comes to abuses?

MR. GOLDBERG: I think it’s an excellent question. And, I think, one thing I see is that, in a lot ofcases, any time you have the movement or engagement of governing bodies or associations, if grassroots organizations don’t like what those organizations are doing, they just move outside the system,or they create their own kind of entities or theirown kinds of associations. So, the reality is, there
is no standardization around how they think about
From a systemic and a structural standpoint, I safety. It really depends on the leadership of those
think Nike has invested a ton of resources towards organizations, the accountability they want to proresearch and developing guides and tools around vide with respect to their programs, and also theincreasing participation for girls and young people expectations of the parents they’re serving within
who typically are not part of the sports ecosystem. those programs.
So, we have to think about this from multiple perspectives, right? It’s not just rolling out the bas- Now, there are exceptions. So, for example, if you’reketballs and running events in these communities running a program that has a partnership with theand getting everyone excited. It’s how are we, one, NBA or NBA teams, license programs, there becreating opportunities for young people to contrib- comes standardization of requirements aroundute their opinions and drive this process? And also background checks or coach training or certain rewhat tools and guides and resources and mandates quirements to participate, even if those organizahave we put out there to inform how opportunity tions might operate outside of the purview of thoseis shared out across the board? Because you look governing bodies and associations. My general perat our youth-sports system, where family income spective is, across the landscape, you generally haveis the number-one driver of if you’re going to par- organizations that want to do the right thing. And
ticipate and how long you’re going to participate. that organizations, especially if they have more caSo, when we create resources for young people to pacity and are hiring more professional staff, they
influence and have a voice at the table and also to take the question of safety and quality very serioussupport the coaches and people who are leading ly.
these programs, I think that’s what’s going to help
with driving the conversation forward. And, cer- But they’re not operating under any other kind of
tainly, Nike and NBA, I think, in the recent years mandate, and it really depends on the individual
have made a lot of investment from multiple places, organization. And, ultimately, if parents don’t feel
multiple verticals, in moving this conversation for- that organization’s safe, they’ll go elsewhere. And
ward.
so, there are gaps that are created by that, and, ultimately, I think we need to figure out ways to better
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. I’ll yield to Com- link those systems together.
missioner Schmitz for a couple of questions.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: So, my second
COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: We heard testi- question is a follow-up. It’s related to this question
mony today regarding how movement sports are from a Constitutional perspective.
under the safety umbrella of the U.S. Center for
SafeSport. Organizations that aren’t overseen by a MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
national governing body fall outside of SafeSport’s

Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ: Because in my
opening statement, I mentioned kind of American‘first things.’ One of our ‘first things’ is our Bill of
Rights, which concludes with the Tenth Amendment. It says that ‘all powers that are not delegated to the national government are reserved to thestates and the people, respectively.’327 So, as I’mkind of listening to these great ideas about, like, anational sports policy, I’m thinking to myself—andCommissioner [Fitzgerald] Mosley already asked
the question—who would write such a policy?
I think your answer, Mr. Farrey, was kind of—it
should be consensual of all of the different stakeholders. Then I’m thinking back to Dr. Minjares’s,
like, slide, where he’s got the New Zealand sports
policy. Of course, New Zealand doesn’t have a
Tenth Amendment, so it’s very easy.
So, my question, I think, is for maybe Dr. Minjares
or maybe Tom Farrey, but it’s a follow-up to Commissioner [Fitzgerald] Mosley’s question: do wehave any of our fifty states that have written state
sport policies? And do we have any kind of bestpractices that we might be able to learn from? Because, frankly, the safety or our young kids is a paradigmatic, what we call a state-police power. It really
isn’t—I mean, obviously with the Olympics there’s anational hook. But the further we get down into thegrassroots, I don’t really see a Constitutional federal role, frankly.
MR. FARREY: Well, I think there is an appropriaterole at the federal, at the national level. I don’t thinkit’s a completely hands-off situation. However, youraise a good question, is there a role for states toplay in organizing sport activity? And the answer isyes. Many of the countries we looked at are the sizeof states. It’s Norway, it’s New Zealand, etc., andthere are a lot of good practices to pull from that.
In the United States, we have no state that has said
there’s a commission, a sports commission, that isreporting to the governor and coordinating activity
and being that gathering place for the stakeholders
to help set policy, or communicate with the healthdepartment when the next pandemic comes along
about shutting down or otherwise.

219

The only parallel we have is in Puerto Rico. Puerto
Rico has a Department of Sports and Recreation,
and what’s required there—I wrote about thisin the New York Times if you want to pull it up—
what’s required there is, if you are offering sports
in Puerto Rico, you are required to register withthe state. And they use that registration to thenmake sure coaches are background-checked, thatthey’re trained in key competencies, etc., etc. Puerto Rico doesn’t have much in the way of resources, but imagine if we could do that here. Imagine
if Minnesota or the State of Washington, whatever,said: ‘Listen, if you’re going to offer sport activity
in our state you got to register.’ And, now, we havea communication channel to push coaches’ education, program standards, SafeSport, whatever else
may be down the pipeline. And Texas might lookdifferent than Minnesota. And that’s okay in someareas, as long as the minimum conditions, thehuman rights of children, are being honored. But
I think that there’s a real opportunity, and there’s
also an opportunity around local sport governance.
Cities using the power of the permit to, you know—
meaning access to public fields, gyms, etc., to say:
‘if you, as a nonprofit or a for-profit are going to use
our space, then you need to show us your coaches
are background-checked, they’re trained in thesekey competencies, etc.’ There is an appropriate rolefor government at each of those levels. I don’t know
if that’s helpful.
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. Mr. Goldberg, youjust spoke a little bit about some of the challenges
with SafeSport adoption or athlete-safety adoption
with organizations moving out of the privy of the
NGB. Are there at least some things that you thinkthat would encourage more private-sector organizers of youth sports to adopt SafeSport standards, orat least participate in the Centralized Disciplinary
Database?
MR. GOLDBERG: There’s a couple of different
ways I’d approach that. The first thing I’d just, ingeneral, would say, is in my experiences in a lot ofcases you’ll have these expectations around training
but that you’re not focused on the outcomes. So, I

327 The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibitedby it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

220

Appendix I

remember sitting in actually a Project Play meeting
where there was a discussion around coach training, around safety, and it was more making sure thetraining happened. But no one asked the questionof, well, did it work, right? So, I think there’s just ageneral question around any of these different policies which is: what are the outcomes we’re trying’to achieve, and how do you create accountability intracking against those outcomes?

co oil drilling allocated to sports facilities throughthe Land and Water Conservation Fund, which
has been around since the 1960s and helped build
more than 40,000 fields and sport spaces over the
past several decades. Every state has benefited fromthis. If you’ve played sports, you probably played ona field that was supported in part by LWCF funds.
That’s not actually federal money. That’s again, a cutof proceeds from oil drilling.

I do think that there are mechanisms to think about
the incentives. Tom mentioned one potential incentive, which is the ability to access space and theability to create requirements. I mentioned earlier
the ability to be a part of programs or affiliations
associated with professional leagues or teams orother kinds of incentives that might approach that.
And the third might be—it’s also eligibility aroundgrants or the ability to have support for programsaround coach training. Where, if you’re willing toaccept certain kinds of standards, in return you’reeligible for pools of funding and support that allows
you to make sure your coaches are trained and accountable. So, I do think, in general, most privateorganizations want to do the right thing. They justultimately need to be nudged and understand what
are the resources that are available to them.

So, I would encourage us to think about not just direct funding by the government, but are there other sources, private sources? Sports betting, whichright now is a state issue, but as things evolve isthere an opportunity to tap into sports betting or
gambling or other type of excise taxes? I think that’s
worth exploring.

CO-CHAIR XIAO: All right, thank you. I’ll yield to
Co-Chair Koller.
CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you. Mr. Farrey, I
love the idea of your NGB GPP—if I got that right.
But what my mind is going to immediately is dollar
signs. That sounds really expensive, and I’m thinking of testimony—I believe it was Pat Kelleher—
early today who talked about our NGBs and just
how under-resourced they are in terms of humanresources and just people and just dollar resources. And so, what are some potential new funding
streams that, in your view, could be considered tosupport grassroots- and youth-sport development?

I also think there is a good conversation to be hadaround mega events in our country. We know thatmega events in the past have produced really solid
legacies. In the 1984 Olympics, the surplus was—part of it went to the USOPC and the NGBs, andpart of it went to create something called the LA84
Foundation, which has introduced millions andmillions of dollars of grants into the Southern California ecosystem since the 1980s. The 1994 FIFA
Men’s World Cup produced the U.S. Soccer Foundation, which is now driving hard on building many
pitches around the country. The 2002 Salt Lake
Olympics created the Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation, which has done a lot of great work in Utah.

So, as we move toward the 2026 FIFA Men’s World
Cup, possibly the Women’s World Cup coming, andthe ‘28 Olympics, I think we need to have a good
conversation about what’s an appropriate legacy
from the event and from the sponsors of the event.
If there’s going to be a surplus, should it all go to elite
athletes, or should it go to funding youth and community development or some, like, combination of
the two that makes sense to the American people? I
could tell you, we’ve seen the research. Americans,
MR. FARREY: Well, the first thing I think we need overwhelmingly, like youth sports. They want theirto do is an assessment, identify all of the sources of kids involved in sports. They get the value proposifederal and state support for sports. And they’re out tion. They’re even supportive of public funding of it.
there. There are agency grants. There are legislative They’re much less supportive of funding of pro
earmarks. There are proceeds from Gulf of Mexi- teams, colleges, you know, etc. But they understandTranscript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

the value prop when it comes to funding youth andschool sports, which is a key piece as well. So, I
think we need to have a conversation. We need to
do the research, identify the potential sources, andthen develop some consensus around that.
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. Commissioner Cisneros Prevo has our next question.
COMMISSIONER CISNEROS PREVO: Thankyou. This is for Ms. Nnamani. In your testimony—thank you for that—you shared some of the benefits
to young people individually that come from participating in sports. What are some of the positive
impacts on entire communities that you’ve seen
when there is both investment in and expansion ofyouth sports that are affordable and accessible?
MS. NNAMANI: That is a great question. The emphasis of our work at PeacePlayers is really centeredon building thriving communities and the role ofsport in doing that. So, I love that your question
is community-centered, because ultimately that’s
what we’re trying to accomplish—is young people
feeling the sense of agency in their communities
and sport being the platform in which we do that.
So, an example I would share is—I spoke a bit about
Brooklyn. I name that city often, mainly because I
worked there for some time. But the example I’mgoing to share is very similar across the board inplaces where we work, in L.A., in Detroit, in Baltimore, and Chicago.
So, in every summer we run a six-week basketballcamp, and we run it outside. I shared earlier about
how local playgrounds are empty because of safetyissues and gun and gang violence in that neighborhood. And so, one summer, the park that we choseas one of—it’s a block that’s known to be one of themost dangerous blocks in the neighborhood. And
we wanted to be a visible—a positive—example ofwhat’s possible when the community collaborates
together. And we’ve been privileged in the work that
we do in Brooklyn that we have some local partners
and people who believe in the idea of what we’retrying to accomplish. And we’re not just the organization that’s leading it, we’re part of a coalition oforganizations who are trying to build more-thriv-

221

ing communities and using sport to do that.
And so, for six weeks, young people came out andparticipated in the basketball camp. And that park,
the surrounding areas around that park, unfortunately, like, drug users will come by every now andthen, people who are just sitting outside and drinking. But by the second week, we noticed, like, there
was an uptick of people coming out to watch and, allof a sudden, asking: ‘Well, what is this? What’s thisPeacePlayers thing, and who is involved with this?’And said they wanted to be involved in, like, in what
PeacePlayers and the other groups were building
through the camp. And so, through the next, youknow, couple of weeks, we had a number of people
who live in the community—residents, people who
had worked in the community—coming by and figuring out ways to align their organizations in what
we were building.
And so, while that is a small example, it’s really atestament to the role that sport can play in convening people from different walks of life in a community. We’re not even talking about, like, the U.S.
as a whole. We’re talking about a community. And
there’s a group called Brownsville Community Justice Center that works directly with young people
who have been in touch with the juvenile system
and really centered on providing opportunities forthem to find employment or go back to school. And
we work closely with that group and a number ofother organizations that are a part of that ecosystemon the economic-empowerment piece. Because wecannot think about youth leadership without thinking about economic empowerment.
Young people have to have pathways that are reachable to them. And what role can the community
play in doing that? And so, the way we think about
thriving communities in PeacePlayers is economic
empowerment, on one hand, and then leadershipdevelopment, on the other—and then the supportive environment, which is the community, in nurturing young people in that path. And so, I gave an
example of Brownsville, Brooklyn. But this is very
similar to what we’re doing in Watts in South L.A.,
in the South Side of Chicago, in East and West Baltimore, in Detroit in Cody Rouge, in and all of these

222

Appendix I

places, where it’s not just sport or access to sport,
it’s access to the social, economic, and health benefits of sport—and young people’s feeling a sense ofagency and power to look around and want to play
an active role in building this vision of a thriving
community.

grams as a market opportunity. That you can run
low-cost programs that can meet the needs of community and bring people in, as opposed to only
focusing on the very top of the pyramid, the mostelite, the most competitive. And I see some signs
that there is more and more focus and interest at
those broad-based programs that is bringing highCO-CHAIR XIAO: I’ll yield to Commissioner Co- er-quality coaching and standards but at a recrehen for our next question.
ational participatory level that’s far more affordable.
So, I think that’s one thing.
COMMISSIONER COHEN: My question is for
Mr. Goldberg. And I’m just wondering, what are the I think the second trend is, ultimately, a question ofmost worrying trends that you’re seeing in youth the idea of, like, the divide between volunteer-based
and grassroots sports, especially post pandemic?
organizations and professional organizations. And
I’m of the mind that, if sports is so important and
MR. GOLDBERG: I appreciate the question. The we talk about the importance of coaching—I went
first thing I’ll say is that any of the trends that have to a coaching clinic last night to coach my kinderhappened since the pandemic have simply been the gartner’s flag football league; I’m pretty well-versed
acceleration of the trends that were true before the in youth sports, and I am not that qualified to do
pandemic. So, the most pressing one, I would say, is this! And I sat around the room, and it was not, like:the question of access and who has access to sport. ‘Let’s talk about positive coaching alliance and how
Because those that had continue to have. And we’re getting a better coaching experience in thethose organizations that were serving those who field.’ It was like: ‘Here’s how you run a fake-pickhave means and had access, they were the first to play to open up a receiver’ for your kindergartner
respond, they had access to their own space—while or first-grader. So, I’m like: ‘Whoa, this does notorganizations with far less capacity serving those seem right!’ And I’m looking around here, saying:
which have the most needs, were really left behind. ‘They are very well-intentioned.’ I happened to be
And they were less able to adapt because of tech- around a bunch of Eagle’s fans. I’m a Dallas Cownology, organizational capacity.
boy’s fan; that was also uncomfortable.
So, I think that you have this acceleration of kindof inequality that mirrors the broader inequality in
our society. And, I think, the real interesting question is where is the opportunity to solve that? So,
one a way of solving that is to say: hey, we have tobetter support organizations that are providing direct services to those under-served communities
like PeacePlayers, right? Or I know through our Fun
Play Foundation—we work with about 175 different
nonprofits—through technology and cash grants tobe able to support them. And that’s also why thePlay Sports Coalition is advocating for more funds
at the federal and state level to directly support
those organizations that are solving those gaps.

And so, I’m looking at this, and I’m saying: ‘Wait,
this can’t be the right way of entrusting the development of our kids through what seems to be a very
high-quality organization to make it happen.’ At thesame time, if the organizations that have professional staff and training isn’t focused on the recreational or entry-level experiences, that’s a missed
opportunity. And so, I think that one of the trends
that worries me is that everyone’s focusing on thewrong thing. And I think that, hopefully, the workof the Commission gets people to focus on the rightproblem.

DR. MINJARES: Can I comment on the clinic
briefly? I just wanted to take the opportunity to
I think the second is we need to encourage orga- say that, you know, welcome to coach training andnizations, incentivize organizations, to think more coach development in youth sports. I mean, this iscreatively about recreational participatory pro- what happens when we entrust the development ofTranscript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

our volunteers to well-intentioned but, ultimately,
either, you know, under-supported or simply unaware of the work that goes into this importantpractice. And I think that coaching needs to be recognized as a legitimate field. Certainly, you have academic study, you have rigor, but also an important
place that we need to develop people’s capacity to
do this. And you don’t just know how to do it because your C.V. says you played or you coached lastyear. We simply can’t keep taking for granted this
work.

223

It’s not even funded by the government; sometimes
it is. But, you know, their job is to get the athletes
to the Olympics and support them along the way. I
mean, they’re working with the tippy, tippy top of
the folks. And, you know, that makes sense because,
I mean, what matters to most people when it comesto sports is this 99% of the population over here. It’s
their kids, it’s their community, that’s how they’re
impacted. So, we’ll publish all this in October, andit’ll all be free, and I can share more then. Can I makeone more point to that?

CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you. Commissioner Mo- You know, I don’t know if it’ll come up or not, butses, I’ll yield to you.
we’ve been talking about athletes all day, asserting
athletes, athletes’ rights, athletes’ voice. When we
COMMISSIONER MOSES: I have a question talk about the Olympic movement in this country—
for you, Tom. Being that we’re the only country whether it’s 11 million people or 16 million people,
that doesn’t have a sports minister, which puts us or there are about 36 million children who playin a very different situation than almost every oth- sports in this country, ages six to seventeen—that
er country in the world—and I think it’s probably a term ‘athlete’ is not applying to 99% of the people
blessing, because I would hate to have funding for who are in that movement. And I think, as we go
sport for development contingent upon a continuing forward here, we need to be mindful about recogresolution, for example, the way things have played nizing anybody who has a body as an athlete, anyout over here. You mentioned a couple of points that body who’s playing. It’s the kid down the street. It’s
we have had a very good history in, producing legacy the kid down the hallway. They need to count as
events, namely the 1984 Olympics, which produced much as an elite athlete out there. What are theya huge windfall, and other possibilities, including thinking? What are they feeling? What do theyWorld Cup football, going forward. How does our need?
system compare with other countries’ approaches toproviding public oversight for youth, grassroots, and We need to listen to that 11 to 16 to 36 million,
high-performance sports? And, I guess you could through surveys, through other methods. We havesay, ‘sport for good’ versus ‘sport for development.’
good feedback. We cannot design a sport systemin this country if we don’t understand how it’s beMR. FARREY: Right. So, there’s all these coun- ing experienced by the people on the ground. So,tries, we’re finding, do things slightly differently, so that is a piece we need to figure out. So, I would
there’s not one model to pull from. And, again, none encourage this group as we go forward, when weof them are perfect, but in general what you have is talk about athletes, let’s be very clear if we’re only
one entity that’s either within the government or is talking about elite, Olympic, podium-ready-type
quasi-government, like USADA or a U.S. Center for athletes who is at the top one half of one percent of
SafeSport, sort of blessed by the government, maybe our population—or are we talking about all athletes
partly funded by the government, that is in charge within the movement? Thank you for indulging me.
of running hard on grassroots sports, mass participation, quality standards, talks with the clubs. That’s CO-CHAIR KOLLER: Thank you for that. Comtheir focus. That’s their business. That’s what they’re missioner Moses, I’m going to take that as the last
trying to do.
question for today. Mr. Farrey, I’ll take that as thelast word. But I would like to also, again, put for
And then there’s the Olympic committee over here, the record everything that you’re talking about,which is just—it’s often like a private organization. in terms of Olympic movement also Paralympic

224

Appendix I

movement and reaching all children who can ben- centers of decision-making. That isn’t the case now,
efit from sport.
and we need to consider the appropriate reforms to
make that happen.
So, we’ve reached the end of our time for this session. I want to thank you all for sharing your in- Athletes also need to know that they can particisights with us. I again want to thank all of witnesses pate in sports safely. This is of particular concern
today, who took the time and investment to travel for parents like me and many others who want to behere to Washington to provide testimony to our enthusiastic about engaging our children in sports,
Commission and answer our questions. As a re- not worried about whether to let them do so beminder, the testimony and a full transcript of these cause it might be unsafe. We need to ensure thatproceedings will accompany the Commission’s fi- movement stakeholders and the American people
nal report. I also want to thank our commissioners can trust in SafeSport to protect all who participate.
for their thoughtful participation as well as my CoChair Han Xiao, who led today’s questioning. I’ll At the same time, our Commission has been looknow turn the gavel over to him to deliver closing ing into barriers that prevent all Americans fromremarks before adjourning our hearing.
accessing movement sports equitably. Particularly
at the youth and grassroots levels, we found that
CO-CHAIR XIAO: Thank you, Dionne. And thank too many people are deterred from participating or
you all for spending the day with us today.
seeking to participate because of high costs, lack ofadequate facilities, or barriers to accessibility. For
Today, we heard voices from across the U.S. Olym- Americans with disabilities, equity and access also
pic and Paralympic movement. There were voic- means equity in support and equality in respect
es of athletes; voices of officials from the USOPC, and attention.
the governing bodies, USADA, and SafeSport; aswell as some voices from outside stakeholders. We While today’s hearing may be ending, our Comheard from a survivor of some of the most horrific mission work will continue. On September 30, theabuses, and we heard from those who have been study phase of our work will conclude. Based on
marginalized and excluded unfairly. They join the the findings of our study, we will work to produce
thousands of individuals and the many organiza- a report with recommendations to Congress and totions our Commission heard from this year. Con- movement stakeholders on how to make the future
gress gave us a mission to listen, and listening is of sports in America better reflect our common viwhat our Commission has been doing. Throughout sion for success. That report will be shared in thethe course of our work, our bipartisan Commission spring of 2024.
has been striving to hear from all the voices of the
movement as we conduct our independent study I refer to a common vision because, while there
and prepare to make our recommendations.
may be some debates within the movement on how
best to achieve them, we’ve identified broad agreeWhat we’ve heard so far, including today, is that we ment on our movement’s values and priorities. It’sneed to make adjustments in the system of gov- a vision that transcends party or ideology, one that
ernance and public oversight of the U.S. Olympic brings harmony to the many different voices thatand Paralympic movement in order to meet tough make up our movement as well as our country.
challenges and ensure maximum transparency andaccountability.
So, even though our challenges are many, they are
not insurmountable. If there’s anything America’s
First and foremost, it’s clear that athletes must be high-performance athletes have taught us, it is thatat the center of this movement. To make certain just when you think an achievement is out of reach,that happens, athletes need to have appropriate it becomes possible—and then seems inevitable.
influence in representation within the movement’s We look forward to sharing our report in the spring,Transcript of the Commission’s Public Hearing

and we encourage Congress and the public to readit and consider the Commission’s recommendations.
Again, thank you all for being a part of these proceedings in this important process. And I hereby
adjourn the commission’s public hearing.
-END OF LIVE TRANSCRIPT-

225

226

Appendix I

What follow are the extended prepared testimony bywitnesses submitted into the record:Statement of Sarah Hirshland

are heard in decision-making processes, while alsoenhancing our understanding and responsivenessto their needs.

Athletes’ mental well-being is a new cornerstone ofChief Executive Officer, U.S. Olympic &our quest for greatness. We have introduced comParalympic Committee
prehensive programs and resources that empower
athletes, acknowledging their needs as individCommission on the State ofuals—and equipping Team USA to excel both on
the U.S. Olympics and Paralympics
and off the field. Our dedication to athlete safety
remains unyielding. We have set up robust meaSeptember 6, 2023
sures and policies to protect, support, and empower athletes. With extensive training, transparent reMembers of the Commission, with sincere grati- porting mechanisms, thorough background checks,
tude, I thank you for your important work support- and reinforced athlete protection policies, we aim
ing our Olympic and Paralympic community. We to be the strongest allies for athletes and the broadalso owe our appreciation to Congress for estab- er Olympic and Paralympic community.
lishing the Commission and dedicating the needed
funding and resources to evaluate the state of the We are now proudly called the United States OlymOlympic and Paralympic movements in the United pic and Paralympic Committee. Our Paralympians’
States.
inclusion in our name—confirmed by our board
in 2019—is intentional and unique among the 205
After five years serving as the CEO of the United National Olympic Committees around the world;
States Olympic & Paralympic Committee, I stand it is a proud affirmation of human potential. We
before you today with stronger conviction than continue to elevate the voices of our Paralympians,
ever about Team USA’s positive impact on Amer- celebrate their triumphs, and endeavor to create aican communities, our youth, and those we inspire platform that recognizes their accomplishments.
and support globally. Team USA athletes have consistently graced the global stage with their bravery, The recent Tokyo and Beijing Games brought exunity, humanity, and unwavering commitment to traordinary excitement as hundreds of athletes
excellence. As the world changes around us, so do represented our nation. Despite the unprecedented
the Olympic and Paralympic movements, bringing challenges of the pandemic, they inspired us andnew challenges. However, we remain resolute in created lifelong memories. Athletes such as Lydour mission to serve Team USA athletes, uphold ia Jacoby, the 17-year-old swimmer who brought
our values, and strengthen our resolve. I take pride home Alaska’s first-ever Olympic gold medal inin our immense progress and am committed to the swimming, Erin Jackson, the first Black woman tojourney ahead.
win a gold medal in the Winter Games, and Oksana
Masters, a remarkable Paralympian who has comIn recent years, we have made significant strides in peted in both the Summer and Winter Games, beathlete safety, representation, mental health, and coming the most decorated Paralympian of all time,
inclusivity. We have spearheaded transformative not only made history but also inspired countlesschanges within our governance including increas- young athletes to push the boundaries of what ising athlete representation on our board of direc- possible.
tors and across our governance committees andinvesting in the strength and efficacy of the Team Looking forward to hosting the world for the 2028
USA Athletes’ Commission. These reforms, cou- Games in L.A. and potentially a Winter Games inpled with our annual athlete listening survey, have the following decade, we have the opportunity togreatly empowered athletes, ensuring their voices showcase the very best of sport in our country. We

Prepared Witness Testimonies

are confident that Team USA will represent our
nation proudly, both as competitors and as global
ambassadors through sport, leaving a legacy thattranscends the competition itself.
Our vision is to chart a stronger future, making Team
USA’s performance the most successful and diverse inhistory, while ensuring top-notch athlete experiences,holistic wellness, and Team USA pride. We will leadin sport science and innovation to enhance athlete
well-being and performance. Our goal is to set thestandard for excellence in sport administration and establish a strong network of partnerships to bolster our
pipeline for generations to come. We are dedicated tofair play and promoting a positive sport culture, whileelevating the popularity of Olympic and Paralympic
sports in the U.S. We aim to generate record-breaking
support for Team USA that will provide stability forthe future well beyond 2028.
And we will not do it alone. The collaboration anddedication of the complex sports ecosystem in the
U.S. comprised of hundreds of sport organizations
and the athletes, coaches, families, sponsors, donors,
fans, and everyone who supports them, is the backbone of American sports. Each plays a crucial role inthis Movement. Every touchpoint, every interaction
with sport, makes Team USA possible. We are all partof Team USA.
As the Commission reviews the extensive materials,
nearly 47,000 pages that we have provided, and summarizes the results of the surveys that were widelydistributed across our 500-member staff and 6,000
alumni, we invite you to consider some of our mostimportant opportunities and challenges. These include extending athlete safety measures across the U.S.
sports spectrum, clarifying the duties of the USOPC
to align with our mission and scope, and refining the
US collegiate sports model to ensure it continues tobe the envy of all those around the world.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am
humbled to be part of this era in Team USA’s history,and I am eager to advance sport in America for future
generations of Team USA athletes. I look forward toanswering your questions.

227

228

Appendix I

Testimony of Elizabeth Ramsey
Executive Director
Team USA Athletes’ Commission
Public Hearing
Commission on the State of the UnitedStates Olympic and Paralympic Committee
September 6, 2023

intended by the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur
Sports Act (the Act) or provide the support that theathletes needed. This was, in part, because TeamUSA AC was comprised solely of athlete volunteers
without staff support, whereas other entities likethe USOPC and the NGBs had full-time employees.
Finally, in January 2020, USOPC and Team USA
AC signed a memorandum of understanding that
allocated an annual budget from the USOPC to
Team USA AC. As a result of this new funding, theExecutive Director position was created.

Co-Chair Koller, and Co-Chair Xiao, and Commissioners,
Since the passing of the Act in 1978, Team USA AC
has evolved to do much more than simply “ensure
Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to communication,” as directed by the Act. The evotestify as part of this public hearing.
lution of athlete representation in the U.S. has led
to what is now Team USA AC. We advocate on beMy name is Elizabeth Ramsey, and I currently serve half of Team USA Athletes, ensure that they haveas the Executive Director of the Team USA Athletes’ a meaningful voice, and empower Team USA athCommission (Team USA AC), formerly known as letes to be change agents.
the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee Athletes’ Advisory Council (USOPC AAC). The Movement has made great strides in improvI am the first executive director of Team USA AC ing the system for athletes and strengthening theand have served in my role since July 2020.
athlete voice. However, there are still many improvements that can be made. Team USA AC isTeam USA AC serves as the representative group hamstrung in many ways due to its complex link
and official voice of the approximately 5,000 Team to the USOPC. The Act is extremely vague when it
USA athletes. Each representative is elected by their comes to the structure of Team USA AC. The Act
fellow athletes. Team USA AC is responsible for states that the USOPC must “establish and mainbroadening communication between the USOPC tain an Athletes’ Advisory Council.” But under thisand active athletes, and serves as a source of input governance structure, Team USA AC is an organiand advice to the USOPC Board of Directors. We zation within the USOPC which creates numerous
facilitate and represent the athlete voice in deci- challenges. Today, I want to highlight three ways
sion-making within the Olympic and Paralympic those challenges have impaired our ability to act as
Movement. With the limited resources and access a strong voice for Team USA athletes.
provided, we attempt to support all athletes during
the Games and advocate on their behalf regarding First, Team USA AC relies solely on the USOPC foron and off-the-field of play issues. Even without an all its funding. It is prohibited from obtaining sponofficial policy in place by the USOPC, we ensure sors, and any fundraising it does is offset by thethere is athlete representation on all USOPC work- budget allotment from the USOPC. In fact, USOPC
ing groups, task forces and committees. And, we could, in theory, pull back all funding for Team USA
provide resources, education and support to Team AC. Without adequate resources, we are unable to
USA Athlete Representatives serving on National provide critical services to Team USA athletes such
Governing Bodies (NGBs) and international com- as helping protect their rights under the Act andmittees.
USOPC Bylaws and increasing financial security,
support, and overall wellness for athletes.
For many years Team USA AC was largely unfunded, and as a result, was not able to have the impact Second, because Team USA AC is not a legally in-Prepared Witness Testimonies

dependent body, it has been challenging for ourAthlete Representatives and Team USA AC staff toform trusting quality relationships with some of theathletes it serves to represent. Many athletes still
believe Team USA AC staff works for the USOPC
and therefore believe that we do not have athletes’
best interests in mind when making decisions.

229

ing recognized by the USOPC as the official representative body of Team USA athletes. This includes
but is not limited to, the creation of proper policies
that require Team USA AC to be provided notice
regarding dispute resolutions and grievances, better access to events, and more clarity and structurein the governance of Team US AC. Were it to bemade a completely independent body that is disThird, Team USA AC is not given the access or in- connected from the USOPC, Team USA AC would
formation it needs from the USOPC to advocate be able to gain more athletes’ trust and have theeffectively for Team USA athletes. Such access is autonomy to make decisions that benefit athletes
critical because we are the sole organization tasked without oversight from the USOPC. Additionally, itwith advocacy on behalf of these athletes. As an ex- is imperative that Team USA AC is given the accessample, during the Tokyo and Beijing Games, Team it needs to garner visibility, awareness, and recogUSA AC was not informed by the USOPC about nition among the entire Movement as the official
potential issues related to athletes. As the official organization representing Team USA athletes. We
voice and advocate for Team USA athletes, any- understand that these are not simple asks, but wething that impacts athletes—especially in situations believe that they are necessary so that we can serve,
where athletes feel as though their rights might be support and advocate for all Team USA athletes.
infringed upon—must be shared with Team USA
AC. This involvement is crucial so that we can pro- Thank you for your time today, and I welcome any
vide the athletes with guidance, help them advo- questions.
cate on their behalf, and view issues from the lensof what might be in the best interest of all TeamUSA athletes. Additionally, the lack of access toTeam USA athletes hampers our ability to inform
athletes about our role or how we can help them.
As an example, during the first few days of the Tokyo Games, as the Executive Director of Team USA
AC, I was not even given the same access to events,
venues, or TA transportation that was provided toother individuals such as USOPC Executives. This
lack of access obstructed our ability to connect withthe athletes, or champion on their behalf, during
the Games, as well as negatively impacted athletes’
perception of our influence. Another example ofthe lack of access to information is that our Athlete Representatives have not been given, by someof their NGBs or the USOPC, names and contact
information for the athletes they represent. These
are all barriers to effective athlete representation.
I am before you today to ask for your assistance ingiving Team USA AC the support it needs to be
impactful, more effective, and better recognizedwithin the Movement. To accomplish this, we believe the Act should be amended to give Team USA
AC independence from the USOPC while still be-

230

Appendix I

Statement for the Record
from Grace French
Founder and President
The Army of Survivors
Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics &Paralympics Public Hearing
2123 Rayburn House Office Building
September 6, 2023
10:50-11:45 a.m.

Thank you to the Commission on the State of U.S.
Olympics & Paralympics for inviting me to speak
today to offer my perspective on safety in sports
as an athlete and survivor. I truly appreciate theCommissioner’s time and commitment to supporting all athletes. My name is Grace French and I am
the founder and President of 501c3 non-profit, The
Army of Survivors. We create awareness, accountability, and transparency around the issue of abusein sport through our pillars: advocacy, education,and resources.
But how did I get here? I often wonder about thiswhen I find myself in situations like these. I began
doing this work in 2018 when I came forward about
the abuse I had experienced at the hands of the
now infamous and imprisoned USA Gymnastics
and Michigan State University doctor. I was abused
from the ages of 12-19. It was only after I came forward that I found out that the first report to the
University of his abuse was in 1997 - I was two years
old. Another report to the University happened in2014 and in 2015, USA Gymnastics, the USOPC,
Michigan State University and the FBI knew he wassexually assaulting people, but failed to stop him ortell his patients. So I continued to see him for myinjuries and was abused multiple times even after it
had been reported.

sures and stressors of athletic competition, as wellas concerns about career opportunities in a finite
timeframe. I was focused on being the best athlete
I could be and trusting the coaches, doctors, andstaff that supported me.
Coming forward with my story changed my life in
multiple ways. But what I failed to predict was that
institutions that I trusted with my safety failed to betransparent or trauma-informed. And there was nosupport from my sport or sports-connected organizations, including the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
I realized that I had to be the change agent myself.
Through all of this trauma, and re-traumatization,
the silver lining was that I became a part of a groupof like-minded people. In the summer of 2018, 40
of us came together to create a shared vision for the
future: a world where athletes can train and compete without violence. Because we knew that wewere not alone in our experience. And from thatvision, The Army of Survivors was formed to turnour pain to power. Since then, our organization has
expanded rapidly, and we have met so many survivors of abuse in sport from across the nation andthe world.
Congress has also responded with new laws, but
we’ve continued to hear from many athlete survivorsof all ages, genders, and sports that more needs tobe done. According to the Congressional ResearchService, between its creation in 2017 and December 2022, the U.S. Centre for SafeSport (SafeSport)
has received over 16,000 reports of abuse and misconduct on nearly 2,000 adults. The demand has
only increased, and we heard from survivors aboutmajor problems with SafeSport response.

Starting in May 2022, TAOS conducted a series ofinterviews with diverse athletes across several different sports, genders, ages, and levels of competition regarding their experiences with reporting
sexual assault. All of these survivors tried to work
I did not know as a young athlete how vulnerable through SafeSport’s process. We’ve gathered their
I was to abuse. Athletes face extreme vulnerabili- testimony and found some common disturbing
ty to sexual abuse because of their complex and themes. A full report of our findings is available andsometimes isolating schedules, the intimate nature will be submitted with my comments.
of coaching and development of sporting skills,
the increased physical care and scrutiny, the pres- Of most concern to me is the re-traumatization that

Prepared Witness Testimonies

survivors of sexual abuse have been subject to in
the SafeSport process. Survivors have been ignored,silenced through do not disclose agreements, hadinvestigations that lingered for years, had no noticeof actions taken by the Center that could directly
put them at risk of retaliation, and have not been
supported through a trauma-informed approach.
It is critical that SafeSport understand that a trauma-informed approach is not biased–it is simply
an approach that recognizes the impact of trauma
and takes steps to prevent re-traumatization. The
impact of trauma on persons’ bodies, minds, andmental health is widely scientifically researched.
Any organization working with persons who havebeen traumatized needs to center this approach.
We need to also center strategies to prevent theseabuses in the first place. We should support innovative prevention programs and community-level
prevention strategies that consider the complex
and intersectional lens of abuse in sports and sexual abuse.

231

has seen the Center that way.
Further, SafeSport’s arbitrary closing of cases withno further information given to survivors, and theirholding jurisdiction of cases they administratively close which prevents non-governmental sports
organizations from investigating and providing accountability and intervention are just further examples of how SafeSport’s systems re-traumatizes anddoes harm.
TAOS’s mission is to prevent what happened to me
from happening to others. To support the healingof survivors like me. To hold the institutions thatfail children accountable. We see SafeSport as oneof those institutions that is critical in responding toand preventing abuse. And we know there are necessary changes that SafeSport must make.

New legislation that is soon to be introduced, The
Safer Sports for Athletes Act of 2023, championed
by Rep. Deborah Ross, is intended to create safer
SafeSport has not been a support or place of trust sports for athletes through key revisions that would
for athletes up to this point. The survivors we talk- improve the reporting process for athlete survivors
ed to were all frustrated with the SafeSport process and revise training guidelines at SafeSport. Alsoand felt there was no transparency of process nor this new legislation importantly starts to focus
was there good communication about their cas- some efforts and resources on prevention stratees and investigations. This extends to SafeSport’s gies–something that appears to be woefully ignored
reputation in the sports world–we have heard that by the Center. I’d ask that the Commission’s recomcoaches, athletes, and families/parents are con- mendations to Congress consider supporting thatcerned that the training they provide is not tailored legislation as it gets introduced.
to sports and does not include a prevention approach or trauma-informed lens.
As an athlete and athlete-survivor founded and ledorganization, The Army of Survivors will continue
SafeSport has not engaged with organizations, like to work toward a safer future for athletes. We hope
The Army of Survivors or others, to bring a mean- that through your leadership, policy change caningful trauma-informed approach to their work become trauma-informed and survivor-centered.
and philosophy. We have tried to open channels of Thank you for your time.
communications several times, only to be largely
ignored.
SafeSport has also failed to connect survivors withmeaningful mental health/suicide prevention support and resources. We have stories of athletes being directed to 1-800 numbers and having no follow up. For some athletes, reporting to SafeSportcan be a first step in their journey to healing andaccountability–but from our experience no athlete

232

Appendix I

Professor Marci A. Hamilton
CEO, CHILD USA; Professor, University ofPennsylvania
Testimony Regarding the U.S. Center for
SafeSport and the Inadequate Protection ofYouth Athletes from Child Sex Abuse
September 6, 2023

Co-Chair Koller, Co-Chair Xiao, and Commissioners, thank you for this opportunity to share my testimony today regarding the U.S. Center for SafeSport(SafeSport), which was formed to secure the safetyof athletes from sexual misconduct and abuse. By
way of introduction, I am the Founder and CEOof CHILD USA and a Professor of Practice in the
Department of Political Science at the Universityof Pennsylvania. I started CHILD USA in 2016 tobuild on my academic work as a law professor on
child sex abuse; it is a nonprofit, interdisciplinary
think tank, which pairs legal analysis with social
science research to formulate the best policies toprevent youth sex abuse. CHILD USA led the only
independent, expert case study into the many systems that should have protected athletes from serial abuser Larry Nassar: “The Game Over Commission to Protect Youth Athletes” (“GOCO Report”).
I. There Is a Nationwide Epidemic of Sex Abuse inSports Causing Potentially Lifelong Damage to Victims that Requires the Olympic System to Focus on
Prevention as Well as Effective Removal of Offending Coaches
At least 20% of girls and 8% of boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18 in the United States.
Child and young adult, or youth, sex abuse (“youth
sex abuse”) occurs across all social groups and institutions, including athletic. Many victims need
decades to come forward. CHILD USA’s study of
Boy Scouts of America victims shows that over halfof the victims reported their sex abuse after age 50.
For this reason alone, an effective system to protect
today’s athletes and to prevent youth athlete sex
abuse are necessary.

The need for an effective system to prevent youth
sex abuse was underscored in CHILD USA’s survey of the victims of Larry Nassar, GOCO Reportat pages 8 and 10, which showed the following disturbing results.
• 100% had no knowledge of where to reportsexual assault or misconduct.
• 22% said no effort was made to make changes
that led to their abuse after reporting.
• 27% believed there would be repercussions
against them if they reported what happened.
II. SafeSport’s Faulty Investigation System andOpaque Arbitration Process for Youth Sex Abuse
Claims Disfavors the Victims and Misleads the
PublicSafeSport has exclusive jurisdiction to “investigate
and resolve reports of sexual misconduct, including without limitation child sexual abuse and any
misconduct that is reasonably related to an underlying allegation of sexual misconduct . . . and otherinappropriate conduct.” It may also take discretionary jurisdiction over other forms of abuse, including bullying, harassment, and emotional abuse, orinstead direct the allegation to the appropriate
National Governing Body (NGB), though the latter are beyond its capacity. SafeSport’s mission is
to “mak[e] athlete well-being the center of our nation’s sports culture through abuse prevention, education, and accountability.” In fact, the primarytask assigned to SafeSport is to receive reports ofsex abuse and/or assault from victims, investigate
whether the offending coach should be removed,
and make a secret report that goes to a private arbitrator having no knowledge of the field. Olympic
athletes are at risk as a result.
The SafeSport process is twofold: (1) the Center
investigates the claim, reaches a conclusion, andrecommends sanctions as needed; and (2) if sanctions are assigned, the accused party can appeal,
which triggers a private “merits arbitration hearing,”
where the accused and the Center present evidence
to an arbitrator, who is not required to have any ex-Prepared Witness Testimonies

perience or training in handling sexual abuse cases
and which has routinely resulted in the re-traumatization of the victims and reversal of well-foundedclaims. Nearly half (42%) of the appealed SafeSportdecisions come out unfavorable to the victim, due
to sanctions against the accused being modified, reduced, or removed.

233

tended to rid the Olympic system of perpetrators,
not perpetuate the systemic failures endangering
youth athletes.
Conclusion

I commend you for holding this public hearing,which is desperately needed to validate athlete vicPrivate arbitration for youth sex abuse claims plays tims of youth sex abuse and to ensure that our nainto the hands of the perpetrators and the insti- tion’s athletes are meaningfully protected now andtutions that cover up for them; it disables victims’ in the future. Please do not hesitate to contact me if
voices and leaves future athletes vulnerable to you have further questions regarding the abuse andpreventable sexual abuse. Numerous coaches that neglect of youth athletes.
SafeSport would have removed were permitted toreturn to coaching following arbitration without
any official public record of the claims made against
them, even as the USOPC paid millions to settle
lawsuits arising from their misconduct. Athletes
and parents deserve better.
CHILD USA recommends elimination of the private and opaque arbitration process and replacement with an Expert Panel, whose members are
drawn from a pool of trauma-informed medical,
psychological, and legal experts in the field of youth
sex abuse. The Expert Panel would have the final
say on a coach’s removal.
III. The SafeSport Board, Investigators, and Proposed Expert Panel Must Be Trained in Trauma
and Its Effects on Youth Sex Abuse Victims
It is widely known that SafeSport’s Board of Directors and investigators have been drawn in significant part from the defense side of sex abuse/assault
cases rather than the victims’ side. Nor is there ameaningful requirement that they have experiencein the field. The Board of Directors, Investigators,
and proposed Expert Panel, instead, should be extremely knowledgeable about sex abuse, trauma,and prevention, and not be trained primarily todismantle sex abuse cases and protect perpetratorsand institutions from actual justice. Such qualified
individuals may include former child sex abuseprosecutors, attorneys that have litigated these cases on the side of the victims, and academics in thefields of physical and psychological trauma, sports
psychology, and youth sex abuse. SafeSport was in-234

Appendix I

Statement of Donald M. Fehr
Before the Commission on the Stateof U.S. Olympics and Paralympics
6 September 2023—Washington, DC

I speak today from the perspective gained over anearly 50 year career representing athletes andworking for their collective benefit. That experience,both outside of and within the Olympic movement,
informs my views as to what recommendations forchange should be considered by this Commission
as it fulfills its Congressional mandate under the
Empowering Olympic, Paralympic and Amateur
Athletes Act of 2020 (EOPAAA). I do not here today make specific suggestions as to amendments tothe law or modifications to the USOPC By-Laws,
but rather speak in general to the considerations I
find persuasive, in the hope that so doing will aid
the Commission in its deliberations.

cussions/negotiations regarding Olympic matters,
including participation in the Olympic Games, aswell the World Baseball Classic and the World Cupof Hockey, both of which are tournaments put on
jointly by the players and owners in the respective
leagues, but with the participation by contract of
the relevant Olympic international federations.

Within the Olympic movement, I served as a Public Sector Director of the USOC (as it was thencalled) from 1996-2003, and was there involvedin a wide variety of issues, both generally, and at
the Executive Committee level and with the Athletes Advisory Council (AAC). Among many otherthings, I was a member of the USOC Special Bid
Oversight Commission regarding the 2002 Salt
Lake City Games bidding scandal (report issued in1999). I left the USOC Board of Directors in early
2003 when I was asked by Senator John McCain tochair the Independent Commission on Reform of
the United States Olympic Committee, which wasestablished by the USOC at the behest of the Senate,
As the Commission is well aware, that Act was which was then in the midst of hearings on USOC
passed in the stark light of abuses suffered by ath- reform in response to the scandals of that time.
letes, but represents only the most recent in a series of reform efforts over the years. Previous ap- What does that experience tell me? How do we
proaches asking others to “take care of ” the athletes, bite into this apple? Do we try to examine eachand treat them right, simply haven’t worked. In my individual problem which has arisen and look forview, then, we are at the stage in which we need a solution within the existing framework? That is
to take to heart the title of the law: we must em- an endless task, and tomorrow’s problems may not
power the athletes, and make certain that they have be today’s problems. The alternative is to consider
the resources necessary to make sure that they are the overall nature of the business at hand, and see
both protected from abuse, and treated fairly in all if some different governmental framework would
respects. Doing so means fundamental structural be more likely to get the job done. I favor this apreform.
proach. In 2003 the Independent Commission’s
approach was to end the enormous Board (120+
As noted, my views stem from decades represent- members if I remember correctly) and substituteing and working for athletes. For nearly 35 years a much smaller one and add “independent direcI represented major league baseball players, first as tors’ to, in theory, reduce the political infighting
outside counsel in the free agency cases in 1975-76, and allow for real time, professional decision makand then on the staff of the Major League Baseball ing. Our report was not adopted, but some efforts
Players Association (MLBPA) until 2010, initially as were made in that direction by the USOC, mainly
General Counsel and then Executive Director, a po- to reduce board size. The Congress then declined
sition I held for more than a quarter century. I then to enact new legislation. Did it work? To ask theserved as the Executive Director of the National question is to answer it; if it had, we would not likeHockey League Players Association (NHLPA) for ly be here. Given the history—troubled again and
12+ years, the position from which I just retired. In again over the years—I no longer believe, as I did in
both organizations, I represented the players in dis- 2003, that changing the size and slightly changing

Prepared Witness Testimonies

the makeup of the Board is sufficient.
Where to start? We need to begin with what thenature of the entity is, as is made crystal clear bywhat it does. What is it that the USOPC (and/or
the IOC, the NGBs and the IFs) do? The answer issimple to state, although rarely (if ever) stated thisdirectly: The Olympics today are a commercial entertainment enterprise; a show. The show consistsof athletic competitions between individuals andteams representing nations. Consider that fans—everywhere else called customers - purchase expensive tickets to watch the show. Broadcast entities
pay very large sums to televise the show. Businesses
pay the broadcasters and the Olympic entities large
sums of money to advertise during the broadcasts.
Sponsors pay a lot of money to associate themselves with the Games. Merchandise—souvenirs—
is licensed and product sold. Local businesses andgovernments pay the producers of the Games tocome and put on the show in their city. In otherwords, lots of money is changing hands in big dollar
garden variety commercial activity in which lots ofpeople are employed and paid and a very long list of
business concerns are profiting.
Except, of course, for the athletes. Consider thatpeople want to watch or be associated with theGames, and that means to watch or be associatedwith the athletes. They are the stars of the show;
they bring the fans, advertisers and sponsors. They
are the best the USA has to offer, and the only indispensable people around. Audi’s rings without thecars mean little or nothing. What do the Olympic rings mean without the athletes? That question
also answers itself. This time we need to empower
the athletes, so that they can, if and when needed
and appropriate, take care of themselves. Do wenot owe them that?
To that end, I offer several ideas that may merit serious consideration if the Commission is prepared torecommend fundamental change. These ideas are
general in nature, but get to the point.
We must first recognize that the USOPC Board is
not accountable to anyone in any meaningful way
in real time. There are no shareholders or owners

235

or bondholders to whom they owe allegiance. To
say that they are accountable to the people of theUnited States, or to the Congress, is simply another way of saying that they are not accountable andthat nothing will happen until scandals reach thepoint that the Congress will look into the matter.
Given the short careers of nearly all athletes, thatwill almost always be too late, after the horse has
left the barn. The Board members are, in practice,accountable only to one another and the only result of poor performance (How is that measured
and by whom?) is that their term may not be renewed. Who, then, is the constituency that theBoard should be serving? There is only one: theathletes. Step 1 should be to define the obligationsof the Board to be to that constituency. But thatmodification is not self-enforcing; more is needed.
The athletes’ voice on the Board needs to be enhanced; empowered. The way that the membershipand voting power of the Board has been structured
over the years effectively ensures that the athletes
can always be outvoted. Several ideas come to mind
as to how that might be addressed.
a) Increase the vote of the athletes to 50% of
the Boardb) Eliminate the requirement that someone
elected by the athletes must have been an
athlete within the last 10 years or some longer period. Why should anyone other than
the athletes have a say in who represents
them? If they want to elect as their representatives only athletes who have recently competed, great. If they want to elect someone
whom they believe can best represent them,and has the kind of experience, connections
and public profile that most athletes won’t
have, that is great, too. The point is that itshould be up to the athletes to decide. If
George W Bush or Barack Obama can be
named by others, why can’t the athletes do
so? The athletes should also have the ability
to remove someone they name to the Boardat any time, if they believe that person is notserving their interests.

236

Appendix Ic) One could also consider giving the athletes
veto power over certain decisions, whichmight include any “independent” board
members, key staff positions such as CEO
and General Counsel, and/or budgets.

can forge with the athletes some sort of arrangements in which those matters can be collectively
worked out.

I recognize that many people—especially volunteers
and staff—may well suggest that they know what isd) Athletes should have the right to audit the best for the athletes and that we have to trust them
USOPC or any other US Olympic organiza- that everything which can be done for the athletestion that they believe should be audited.
is being done. Perhaps, but history does not sosuggest; we have been down that road for decadese) Establish an organization of the athletes, now, and yet here we are, again. Accordingly, mywith sufficient funding, controlled by the recommendation simply comes down to this: We
athletes and run by professional staff of the have to empower the athletes and we have to trust
athletes’ choosing, to represent them as a them.
group and assist individual athletes with any
issues which may arise. This organization I have had the privilege of working with and repmust be accountable to the athletes, and resenting elite athletes for five decades. My expededicated to working for and with them. If rience strongly suggests that if we give the US athan athlete has a problem—including but not letes the tools, they will be able to do the job. It islimited to cases of abuse - he or she needs time.
somewhere to go knowing that whomever
she or he speaks to is selected, and paid by Finally, I want to thank the Commission for the opthe athletes, and dedicated only to their wel- portunity to express my views. I hope you will findfare.
them helpful as you deliberate and consider yourrecommendations.
Before closing, there is one other matter to which
I would direct your attention. The athletes are notusually considered to be “employees” in the traditional legal sense, but it is impossible to say with astraight face that they do not “work for” the Olympic movement, for their own NGB or the USOPC.
Moreover, being an Olympic athlete usually meansthat other opportunities will be, at best, delayed
and may well be lost; the opportunity cost can beenormous. In addition to the rigors of training andcompetition, they run the continual risk of serious
injury. In a few sports, a lucrative professional
career is possible, but that is not the case with respect to the overwhelming majority of the athletes.
I would therefore suggest that thought be given to
establishing some sort of mechanism(s) to consider what kinds of arrangements or agreements areappropriate to make sure that the athletes are protected, but also that they are treated fairly, that theconditions under which they train and compete
are appropriate, and that their contribution to the
USOPC and the NGBs is fairly recognized. I do
not suggest a traditional union, but creative peoplePrepared Witness Testimonies

Testimony of Travis T. Tygart
Chief Executive Officer
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency237

us the platform for success, we also know it is a daily fight to improve, hold ourselves accountable, bebetter, and truly strive for the perfection that athletes deserve.

The word ‘independent’ is thrown around a lot in
the global Olympic and Paralympic movement.
From our experience and perspective, however, theGood afternoon, my name is Travis T. Tygart, and I only true definition of ‘independence’ is that thoseam the Chief Executive Officer of the United States who govern or otherwise make decisions affecting
Anti-Doping Agency, also known as USADA. I others cannot have any actual or perceived interest
want to thank this Commission for the opportunity in the outcome of the decision they are making. We
to appear before you today to discuss how USADA are proud of the fact that no one on our Board can
can assist in the incredibly important work you all also serve in a paid or voluntary governing or emhave before you.
ployment position for any organization for which
we administer an anti-doping program. Many of
It is an honor for me to be here representing our you have heard me say that you cannot have theten-person, independent USADA Board of Direc- fox guarding the henhouse. It is a concept that is as
tors, our relatively small but incredibly talented simple as it is effective.
professional staff, and most importantly, clean athletes from across the United States for whom we Similarly, our independence is also enhanced
advocate every day. It is also an honor for USADA, through our public-private partnership with thea 501 (c)(3), not-for-profit organization, to be a part federal government. In the early 2000s, the Unitedof such an important discussion.
States Olympic and Paralympic Committee put astake in the ground in establishing USADA as an
USADA is unique in the U.S. Olympic and Paralym- independent model and by providing a portion of
pic movement. We are a private organization but our funding. The USOPC, the largest and mostalso authorized and recognized by Congress as the powerful NOC in the global Olympic and Paralym“independent National Anti-Doping Agency for pic movement, courageously ceded control of anthe United States Olympic, Paralympic, Pan and ti-doping efforts and still strongly supports our
Para-Pan American movement.” As such, we also mission today.
greatly appreciate the ongoing support of Congressand especially the President’s Office of National Athletes have come to trust USADA because there
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in our efforts to is not a single decision we make without first asking
protect athletes’ rights to a fair, safe, and level play- --is this best for clean athletes? We view athletesing field.
and their powerful stories- as our guiding light, ourNorth Star. They give us hope, they daily remind us
While I appreciate USADA is not directly under the of our purpose, and they provide us the fuel to conpurview of your study as called for by the Empow- tinue to fight, sometimes against all odds, for theirering Olympic, Paralympic and Amateur Athletes right to clean and fair competition. Simply put, weAct, we are honored to have worked with the Com- are unwavering in our service to athletes and their
mission over the past several months and to be here right to a fair playing field.
today to offer any insight that could be helpful to
your mission.
Fairness and integrity in athletic competition are
the two bedrock principles at the heart of why athThe most important reason for our success is our letes devote their lives to sport, but they are under
independence. While we firmly believe the inde- attack. We must ensure a properly structured andpendent, public-private partnership model allows funded system both here and around the world is in
September 6, 2023 Hearing
Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2123

238

Appendix I

place to protect the rights of athletes who competewith integrity. If we do not, we will be committing
an unacceptable injustice to today’s clean athletes,
fans, broadcasters, sponsors who believe in, andinvest in, fair and clean competition; and, equally
intolerable, we risk shattering the dreams of tensof millions of young people from around the world.
You have heard the stories of athletes who havebeen materially and adversely affected by systems
that do not protect their rights and have caused
them harm. American shot putter Adam Nelson
was awarded a gold medal nine years after the 2004
Summer Olympics, when the original gold medalist
tested positive.

Of course, even with the noblest of missions, thebest governance structures and adequate resources,
organizations are only as good as the culture thatexists within those organizations. It is the people
and the team that makes up the organization. In
this regard, it is vital to ensure as diverse, experienced, and committed of a Board and professionalteam as possible.

As previously referenced, we put athletes first andconstantly aim to do what clean athletes would do.
This is made incredibly easy as we were founded byathletes, are governed, in large part, by athletes, andwe constantly strive to listen to and serve athletes.
When the Russian state-sponsored doping scheme
was finally exposed by brave whistleblowers and
The most decorated Olympic athlete in history, Mi- the media, we saw athletes mobilizing, voicing theirchael Phelps, testified in this very room in 2017 opinions and concerns, and fighting for a level playthat as a clean athlete, he always had serious doubts ing field more than ever before. They stood on thewhether he truly competed on a level playing field shoulders of athletes of a previous generation whoon the international stage.
suffered through another state doping scandal—
athletes such as Frank Shorter, Evelyn Ashford,
Katie Uhlaender lost a bronze medal at the Sochi Kate Borg, and Edwin Moses -- who became our
Winter Olympics by .04 seconds to a Russian ath- founders and have served on our governing Board.
lete who was named in the Russian doping scandal.
She learned from the New York Times she was ele- Today, we currently have five of our Board members,
vated to a bronze medalist, only to have it reversed including our Chair Emeritus, who were Olympians
and her dream extinguished once again.
or National team level athletes. We seek input andfeedback from athletes. We regularly engage with
Newly, elected USADA Board member, Kara the Team USA Athletes’ Commission (formerly
Goucher, a decade after racing the 10,000 meters the AAC), and we take every opportunity to attend
at the track and field World Championships, finally their meetings and engage with them - whether onreceived the medal she won and deserved - the sil- the agenda or not.
ver - when the second-place finisher from Turkey,
was exposed as a doper.
In fact, I attended my first AAC meeting in early
2003. It was out of these engagements that athletes
Even as we sit here today, another group of athletes asked us to publicly post on our website the exact
have been robbed of their rights and that irreplace- number of tests they had provided. This was a levable moment on the podium. You have heard the el of transparency and accountability that athletes
story of the U.S. Figure Skating Team, whose po- demanded. Today, we are one of the only organizadium moment is still in purgatory waiting the long tions to post individual test numbers and while it isoverdue positive case of a Russian figure skater to a level of accountability, it also goes a long way inbe resolved by a global system that has delayed jus- building trust and confidence with our athletes.
tice so long that it has been denied.
We also regularly conduct athlete surveys to allow
These stories go on and on. All athletes deserve bet- athletes to provide feedback to an outside adminter. Justice demands better.
istrator of the survey. This direct outreach to ourcountry’s elite athletes provides us with anony-Prepared Witness Testimonies239

mous but critical feedback and information on how Thank you for the invitation to appear before you
we are doing and how we can do better. We also today and best of luck with your important work.
employ Olympians and Paralympians, like Allison
Wagner and Kevin Broussard. Allison is a silver Thank you, I look forward to any questions.
medalist in 1996 and world champion, who also
lost gold in 1996 to a doper. She oversees our athlete engagement and international relations efforts.
Obviously, the independent, private-public partnership model has worked for USADA. While weunderstand your review is not in the global arena,
we would recommend that you re- confirm the independent model is essential at national and global levels of anti-doping and integrity enforcement.
Hopefully, our experience provides some guidance
to you in your important work in other areas of the
Olympic and Paralympic movement.
The timing of your work cannot be overstated, as
I am sure you have heard and realize, the belief ininstitutions and organizations for sport—including
its governance and integrity across the global sportlandscape —could be at an all-time low. Trust andconfidence in sport integrity has declined significantly over recent years and only seems to be getting worse. The new threats from legalized betting,
NIL pressures at the college-level, and the influx ofextraordinary amounts of money into sport at alllevels in the U.S. and around the world has sport
and athletes at a crossroads.
To a large extent, the personal well-being of thenext generation of athletes hangs in the balance.
This is not just about elite Olympic and Paralympic
athletes—this is about every kid on a playground
who has an Olympic or Paralympic dream and asks,“What do I have to do to make my dreams cometrue?” And, the truth is, if we as a movement don’t
push, if we don’t win on all the issues that affectathletes, we will likely find ourselves back in thissame position, years from now, staring down another egregious scandal that has abused athletes
and robbed another generation of athletes in theprocess.
And we will all be wondering why we didn’t do morewhen we had the chance.

240

Appendix I

Testimony of Katrina L. Piercy
PhD, RD, ACSM-CEP, FACSM
CDR, US Public Health Service
Director, Division of Prevention Science
Office of Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion (ODPHP)
Office of the President’s Council on Sports,
Fitness & Nutrition (PCSFN)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health(OASH)
Department of Health and Human Services(HHS)
Before the Commission on the State of
U.S. Olympics and Paralympics
Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2123
September 6, 2023

(NHIS) each have a question about overall physicalactivity that can include examples, such as exercise,recreation/leisure, play, and sports participation.
YRBS also includes a question on the number ofsports teams on which the individual participates.
The School Health Policies and Practices Study(SHPPS), a previously funded survey from theCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
was the only federal surveillance system that measured participation in youth sports at the school orcommunity level and focused on school systems(e.g., classroom, school, school district, state level) for kindergarten through twelfth grade. Additional details about these surveillance systems are
in Chapter 4 of the National Youth Sports Strategy (NYSS),329 Tracking Youth Sports Participation
and Access.

For Healthy People 2030, a new physical activity
objective, PA-12, was added to track youth sports
328
Introduction
participation: Increase the proportion of children
and adolescents who play sports.330 This addition is
Co-Chairs Dionne Koller and Han Xiao, and distin- consistent with other federal policies having correguished members of the Commission, it is an hon- sponding Healthy People 2030 objectives to monor to provide this written testimony to you today itor progress toward meeting health-related goals.
regarding the federal government’s work in youth For example, there are multiple objectives to tracksports, specifically around measurement of youth physical activity participation toward meeting the
sports, the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans331 (e.g.,& Nutrition, and the importance of the National PA-05 and PA-08). The data for PA-12 is tracked usYouth Sports Strategy as a federal roadmap with ing the NSCH, funded and administered annuallyactionable strategies to increase participation in by the Health Resources and Services Administrayouth sports.
tion (HRSA). Prioritizing youth sports as a national objective in Healthy People 2030 enables the U.S.
How the federal government currently tracks data Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
and trends in youth/grassroots sports in America
to monitor progress toward improving participation and can help inform future federal efforts to
There are limited federal surveillance systems that support the availability of safe, fun, inclusive, deassess youth sports participation. Four systems, the velopmentally appropriate, and accessible sports
National Health and Nutrition Examination Sur- opportunities for all youth.
vey (NHANES), the Youth Risk Behavior Survey(YRBS), the National Survey of Children’s Health Based on current data for PA-12 from 2020-2021,332(NSCH), and the National Health Interview Survey 50.7% of children and adolescents aged 6 to 17
328

Footnote nos. 329-348 are original to Dr. Piercy’s submitted testimony.

329

https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/National_Youth_Sports_Strategy.pdf

330 https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/physical-activity/increase-proportion children-and-adolescents-who-play-sports-pa-12
331

https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf

332 https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/physical-activity/increase-proportion children-and-adolescents-who-play-sports-pa-12

Prepared Witness Testimonies

years participated in a sports team or took sports
lessons after school or on weekends in the past
12 months. The baseline for this objective is from2016-2017, which showed 58.4% of youth participated in sports in the past year. The current participation rates were likely impacted by the COVID-19
pandemic and the closure of many youth sports
programs.

241

well-being of all Americans. Since its establishment
in 1956, the President’s Council has played an important role in educating Americans about the benefits of physical activity.

The President appoints members of the President’s
Council as Special Government Employees to provide advice and recommendations to HHS throughthe Secretary of Health and Human Services on
Available data indicate that there are also substan- physical fitness and nutrition promotion. Prestial disparities to youth sports participation. Youth ident’s Council members serve as subject matter
sports participation rates are lower among girls experts on selected topics and act as liaisons to reland underserved populations, including racial and evant State, local, public, and private entities. The
ethnic minorities and youth from lower income diverse make-up of the President’s Council, many
households. Additionally, rates of youth sports of whom are high-profile athletes or well known
participation are lower for youth with a disability in their community, enables HHS to engage with aand those who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or variety of non-profit, private sector, and state andnot sure.333 There are also significant differences local agencies and offices to promote programs andbased on economic circumstances. For example, initiatives that motivate people of all ages, back67.7% of youth from households with incomes of at grounds, and abilities to lead active, healthy lives.
least 400 percent of the federal poverty thresholdparticipated in a sports team or lesson after school As a federal advisory committee, the President’s
or on weekends within the last 12 months, com- Council adheres to the requirements establishedpared 33.9% of youth from households at less than by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).337
100 percent of the poverty threshold.334 Similarly, Policy is ultimately the responsibility of the federal
only 25.7% of youth from households with less than government staff. An advisory committee can proa high school education participated, compared to vide valuable review, comment, and recommen64.8% of youth from households with a college de- dations on these matters, but it does not have thegree or higher.335
authority to make final decisions regarding programming or budgets.
Brief history and role of the President’s Council
The President’s Council is supported by federal staff
The mission of the President’s Council on Sports, from the Office of the President’s Council on Sports,
Fitness & Nutrition (President’s Council)336 is to Fitness & Nutrition, which is housed within the Ofengage, educate, and empower all Americans to fice of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
adopt a healthy lifestyle that includes regular phys- (ODPHP). The President’s Council was establishedical activity and good nutrition. The President’s through an Executive Order by the President ofCouncil is the only federal advisory committee the United States. President Biden issued Executive
focused solely on the promotion of physical activi- Order 14048338 on September 30, 2021, renewing
ty, sports, fitness, and nutrition for the health and the President’s Council for another two years.
333 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/su/su7201a1.htm
334 https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/physical-activity/increase-proportion children-and-adolescents-who-play-sports-pa-12
335 https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/physical-activity/increase-proportion children-and-adolescents-who-play-sports-pa-12
336

https://health.gov/pcsfn

337 https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/federal-advisory-committee-management/advice-andguidance/facabrochure#:~:tex
t=Under%20the%20Federal%20Advisory%20Committee,by%20law%20or%20Presidential%20Directive
338

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-10-05/pdf/2021-21908.pdf

242

Appendix I

Current priorities of the Office of the President’s
Council include:• Continue to promulgate a national strategy(the National Youth Sports Strategy);• Increase awareness of the benefits of participation in sports and regular physicalactivity, as well as the importance of goodnutrition;• Promote private and public sector strategies
to increase participation in sports, encourage
regular physical activity, and improve nutrition;• Expand national awareness of the importanceof mental health as it pertains to physical fitness and nutrition• Share information about the positive effectsof physical activity on mental health, particularly as it relates to children and adolescents,
to combat the negative mental health impactsof the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
pandemic; and• Amplify progress made in response to theWhite House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health held in September 2022 andthe Biden-Harris Administration National
Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition and Health andreinforce the goals set by this Administration
to reduce hunger and improve healthy eating
and physical activity by 2030.339

dential Executive Order 13824,341 which called fora national strategy to increase youth sports participation. It contains actionable strategies for different sectors of society to work toward the NYSS
vision: that one day all youth will have the opportunity, motivation, and access to play sports. Recognizing the need to make it easier for all people
to be more physically active—in part by ensuringthat everyone has access to safe places to be active,
the Biden-Harris Administration included federal
actions as well as a call for a whole-of-society response to increase physical activity for all in the National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and Healthreleased in the fall of 2022.342 The Strategy calls fora whole-of government and whole-of-America approach to increase physical activity by 2030.
The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines)343 recommends youth aged
6 to 17 years get 60 minutes or more of moderate-intensity physical activity each day, including vigorous-intensity, bone-strengthening, andmuscle-strengthening activities three days aweek. Currently, less than 16% of youth meet the
Guidelines,344 and sports are one way for youth to
get the physical activity they need to be healthy.
As discussed in the NYSS, sports also can provide
benefits beyond those associated with physical activity in general, including developing competence,
confidence, and self-esteem; reducing risk of suicide and suicidal thoughts and tendencies; and improving life skills, such as goal setting, time management, and work ethic.345

Brief overview of the National Youth Sports Strategy(NYSS) and why it is important for there to be anational youth sports strategy on the federal levelNot all youth have the same opportunity to participate in sports (girls, racial and ethnic minorities,
LGBTQI+ youth, youth from households of low
socioeconomic status, youth living in rural areas,
HHS developed the NYSS340 in response to Presi- and youth with disabilities have lower rates of par339 The Biden-Harris Administration National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition and Health is not currently included in Executive Order 14048,
however, the National Strategy is aligned with the goals of the President’s Council.
340

https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/National_Youth_Sports_Strategy.pdf

341

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-201800119/pdf/DCPD-201800119.pdf

342 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/White-House-National-Strategy-on-Hunger Nutrition-and-Health-FINAL.pdf
343

https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf

344 https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/physical-activity/increase-proportion adolescents-who-do-enough-aerobic-and-muscle-strengthening-activity-pa-08345

https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/National_Youth_Sports_Strategy.pdf

Prepared Witness Testimonies

243

ticipation compared to their peers), which resultsin varying participation rates across demographic
groups.346 347 This means that youth have unequal
access to the health, psychosocial, and academic
benefits of youth sports participation. HHS developed the NYSS to address these disparities and therelated barriers in order to improve youth sports
participation and access.

the community level. However, several federal initiatives promote youth sports. Activities include
collecting and monitoring surveillance data (e.g.,
CDC, Healthy People objectives, HRSA, National
Institutes of Health, NIH), promoting youth sports
through public figures (i.e., President’s Council),and providing grant funding (e.g., CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, NIH).
These initiatives establish a foundation to further
The NYSS provides a framework for how entities advance the federal government’s efforts to have aacross the youth sports system can facilitate safe, larger impact on the youth sports landscape.
fun, inclusive, developmentally appropriate, andaccessible sports opportunities for all youth. The[END OF RECORD]
framework is operationalized based on the social-ecological model, which summarizes key
factors that influence youth sports participation
at multiple levels. Best practices were gathered
through a public listening session, public comments, a literature review, and an environmental
scan. The strategies were then organized into opportunities and action items for each level of theframework, providing steps for youth, adults, organizations, communities, and local, state, tribal, andfederal governments to improve the youth sports
landscape in the United States.
The NYSS Champions348 initiative (currently 230+
organizations) was launched in September 2020
and aims to connect and recognize organizations
that support the vision of NYSS. NYSS Champions serve over 80 million youth, and many have a
specific focus on underserved populations. NYSS
Champions play an important role in reducing disparities in access to sports and supporting youth
mental health through opportunities for youth tobe physically active, experience social connectedness, and build resilience.
Many countries around the world have a robust interest in sports participation and have ministriesof sport or government funded national organizations that support the country’s sports system. In
the United States, youth sports are not led at thefederal level, rather they are organized and led at
346 https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/physical-activity/increase-proportion children-and-adolescents-who-play-sports-pa-12
347

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/su/su7201a1.htm

348

https://health.gov/our-work/nutrition-physical-activity/national-youth-sports-strategy/nyss-champions

244

Appendix II

Summer Olympics, 1964–2020
Top Ten by Medals Won

1964
Tokyo

1968
Mexico City

1972
Munich1976
Montreal

1980
Moscow

1st

Soviet Union (96)

United States (107)

Soviet Union (99)

Soviet Union (125)

Soviet Union (195)

2nd

United States (90)

Soviet Union (91)

United States (94)

United States (94)

East Germany (126)

3rd

United Team ofGermany (50)

Hungary (32)

East Germany (66)

East Germany (90)

Bulgaria (41)4thJapan (29)West Germany (26)West Germany (40)West Germany (39)

Hungary (32)

5th

Italy (27)Japan (25)

Hungary (35)Romania (27)

Poland (32)

6th

Poland (23)East Germany (25)Japan (29)

Poland (26)Romania (25)7th

Hungary (22)

Poland (18)

Poland (21)Japan (25)Athletes from GreatBritain (21)8thAustralia (18)Australia (17)Bulgaria (21)

Bulgaria (22)

Cuba (20)9thGreat Britain (18)

Italy (16)

Italy (18)

Hungary (22)Athletes from Italy (15)10thFrance (15)France (15)Great Britain (18)

Cuba (13)Athletes from France
(14)

1984
Los Angeles

1988
Seoul

1992
Barcelona

1996
Atlanta

2000
Sydney1st

United States (174)Soviet Union (132)

Former Soviet Unified
Team (112)

United States (101)

United States (93)

2ndWest Germany (59)East Germany (102)

United States (108)Germany (65)

Russia (89)

3rd

Romania (53)

United States (94)Germany (82)

Russia (63)China (58)

4thCanada (44)West Germany (40)

China (54)China (50)Australia (58)

5thGreat Britain (37)

Bulgaria (35)

Cuba (31)Australia (41)Germany (56)6th

China (32)South Korea (33)

Hungary (30)France (37)France (38)7th

Italy (32)

China (28)South Korea (29)

Italy (35)

Italy (34)8thJapan (32)

Romania (24)France (29)South Korea (27)

Cuba (29)9thFrance (28)Great Britain (24)Australia (27)

Cuba (25)Great Britain (28)10thAustralia (24)

Hungary (23)Spain (22)Ukraine (23)South Korea (28)

245

Tables of Olympic & Paralympic Medal Counts

2004
Athens

2008
Beijing

2012
London2016
Rio de Janeiro

2020
Tokyo

1st

United States (101)

United States (112)

United States (104)

United States (121)

United States (113)

2nd

Russia (90)

China (100)

China (92)

China (70)

China (89)

3rd

China (63)Russia (60)

Russia (66)Great Britain (67)

Russian Olympic
Committee (71)

4thAustralia (50)Great Britain (51)Great Britain (65)

Russia (56)Great Britain (64)5thGermany (49)Australia (46)Germany (44)Germany (42)Japan (58)6thJapan (37)France (43)Japan (38)France (42)Australia (46)7thFrance (33)Germany (41)France (35)Japan (41)

Italy (40)8thItaly (32)South Korea (32)Australia (35)Australia (29)Germany (37)9thSouth Korea (30)

Cuba (30)South Korea (30)

Italy (28)Netherlands (36)10thGreat Britain (30)

Italy (27)

Italy (28)Canada (22)France (33)

246

Appendix II

Summer Paralympics, 1964–2020
Top Ten by Medals Won

1964 Tokyo

1968 Tel Aviv

1972 Heidelberg

1976 Toronto

1980 Arnhem

1stUnited States (123)

United States (99)

United States (75)

United States (155)

United States (195)

2ndGreat Britain (61)Great Britain (69)West Germany (67)West Germany (97)

Poland (177)

3rd

Italy (43)Israel (62)Great Britain (52)Great Britain (94)West Germany (162)

4thArgentina (37)

Italy (39)South Africa (41)Netherlands (84)Canada (130)5thAustralia (30)Australia (38)Netherlands (38)Canada (77)Great Britain (100)6thIsrael (23)West Germany (35)

Poland (33)

Sweden (74)Netherlands (100)7thSouth Africa (19)France (32)France (33)Israel (69)

Sweden (91)8th

Rhodesia (17)Argentina (30)Israel (28)France (58)France (85)9thNetherlands (14)South Africa (26)

Italy (17)Poland (53)Mexico (42)10thWest Germany (12)Netherlands (20)

Jamaica (15)Austria (50)

Norway (36)1984
New York & Stoke
Mandeville

1988
Seoul

1992
Barcelona &Madrid1996
Atlanta

2000
Sydney1st

United States (397)

United States (269)

United States (175)

United States (157)

Australia (149)

2ndGreat Britain (331)West Germany (193)

Germany (171)

Germany (149)Great Britain (131)

3rdCanada (238)Great Britain (184)Great Britain (138)Great Britain (122)

United States (109)4thWest Germany (232)

Canada (152)

Spain (120)Australia (106)Spain (105)5thFrance (186)France (140)

Australia (110)Spain (106)Canada (96)6th

Sweden (160)

Sweden (103)France (107)France (95)

Germany (95)

7thAustralia (154)Australia (95)Canada (81)Canada (69)France (86)8thNetherlands (135)South Korea (94)

Sweden (68)Netherlands (45)

China (73)9thPoland (106)Netherlands (83)Former Soviet Unified
Team (50)

Italy (45)

Poland (53)10th

Norway (90)

Poland (81)

China (31)Denmark (41)

Czech Republic (43)

247

Tables of Olympic & Paralympic Medal Counts

2004
Athens

2008
Beijing

2012
London2016
Rio de Janeiro

2020
Tokyo

1st

China (141)

China (211)

China (231)

China (239)

China (207)

2ndAustralia (101)Great Britain (102)Great Britain (120)Great Britain (147)Great Britain (124)

3rdGreat Britain (94)

United States (99)

Russia (102)

Ukraine (117)

Russian Paralympic
Committee (118)

4thUnited States (88)Australia (79)

United States (98)

United States (115)

United States (104)

5thGermany (78)Ukraine (74)Australia (85)Australia (81)

Ukraine (98)

6thFrance (74)

Russia (63)Ukraine (84)Brazil (72)Australia (80)7thCanada (72)Germany (59)Germany (66)Netherlands (62)Brazil (72)8thSpain (71)

Spain (58)France (45)Germany (57)

Italy (69)9th

Ukraine (55)France (52)Brazil (43)

Italy (39)Netherlands (59)10th

Poland (54)Canada (50)

Spain (42)

Poland (39)France (55)248

Appendix II

Winter Olympics, 1964–2022
Top Ten by Medals Won

1964
Innsbruck

1968
Grenoble1972
Sapporo1976
Innsbruck

1980
Lake Placid

1stSoviet Union (25)

Norway (14)Soviet Union (16)Soviet Union (27)East Germany (23)

2nd

Norway (15)

Soviet Union (13)East Germany (14)East Germany (19)Soviet Union (22)

3rdAustria (12)Austria (11)Norway (12)United States (10)United States (12)4thFinland (10)France (9)Switzerland (10)West Germany (10)Norway (10)5thUnited Team ofGermany (9)Netherlands (9)Netherlands (9)Norway (7)Finland (9)6thFrance (7)Sweden (8)United States (8)Finland (7)Austria (7)7thSweden (7)West Germany (7)West Germany (5)Austria (6)Switzerland (5)8thUnited States (7)United States (7)Italy (5)Netherlands (6)West Germany (5)9thItaly (4)

Switzerland (6)Austria (5)Switzerland (5)Sweden (4)10thCanada (3)East Germany (5)Finland (5)Italy (4)Liechtenstein (4)1984
Sarajevo

1988
Calgary

1992
Albertville

1994
Lillehammer

1998
Nagano1st

Soviet Union (25)

Soviet Union (29)Germany (26)

Norway (26)Germany (29)

2nd

East Germany (24)East Germany (25)Former Soviet Unified
Team (23)Germany (24)

Norway (25)

3rdFinland (13)

Switzerland (15)Austria (21)

Russia (23)Russia (18)

4thNorway (9)Austria (10)Norway (20)

Italy (20)Austria (17)5thUnited States (8)West Germany (8)Italy (14)

United States (13)Canada (15)6th

Sweden (8)Finland (7)United States (11)Canada (13)

United States (13)7thCzechoslovakia (6)Netherlands (7)France (9)Switzerland (9)Finland (12)8th

Switzerland (5)Sweden (6)Finland (7)Austria (9)Netherlands (11)9thCanada (4)United States (6)Canada (7)South Korea (6)Japan (10)10thWest Germany (4)Italy (5)Japan (7)Finland (6)Italy (10)249

Tables of Olympic & Paralympic Medal Counts

2002
Salt Lake City

2006
Turin

2010
Vancouver

2014
Sochi

2018
Pyeongchang

2022
Beijing

1stGermany (36)Germany (29)

United States (37)

Russia (30)

Norway (39)

Norway (37)

2nd

United States (34)

United States (25)Germany (30)

United States (28)Germany (31)

Russian Olympic
Committee (32)

3rd

Norway (25)Canada (24)Canada (26)

Norway (26)Canada (29)Germany (27)

4thCanada (17)Austria (23)

Norway (23)Canada (25)

United States (23)Canada (26)5thAustria (17)Russia (22)Austria (16)Netherlands (24)Netherlands (20)

United States (25)6thRussia (13)Norway (19)Russia (15)Germany (19)South Korea (17)Sweden (18)7th

Italy (13)Sweden (14)South Korea (14)Austria (17)Athletes from
Russia (17)Austria (18)8thFrance (11)

Switzerland (14)China (11)France (15)

Switzerland (15)Japan (18)9th

Switzerland (11)South Korea (11)Sweden (11)Sweden (15)France (15)Netherlands (17)10thNetherlands (8)Italy (11)France (11)

Switzerland (11)Sweden (14)Italy (17)250

Appendix II

Winter Paralympics, 1976–2022
Top Ten by Medals Won

1976
Ornskoldsvik

1980 Geilo

1984
Innsbruck

1988
Innsbruck

1992
Tignes &Albertville

1994
Lillehammer

1stAustria (35)

Norway (54)Austria (70)

Norway (60)

United States (45)

Norway (64)2ndWest Germany (28)Finland (35)

Norway (41)Austria (44)Germany (38)Germany (64)

3rdFinland (22)Austria (22)

Switzerland (37)West Germany (30)Former Soviet
Unified Team (21)United States (43)4th

Sweden (20)West Germany (18)

United States (35)

United States (30)Austria (20)Austria (35)5th

Switzerland (12)Sweden (16)Finland (34)Finland (25)France (19)France (31)6thNorway (12)Switzerland (10)West Germany (34)

Switzerland (23)

Switzerland (15)

Russia (30)7thFrance (5)United States (6)Sweden (14)Sweden (15)Finland (14)Finland (25)8thCanada (4)Canada (6)Canada (14)France (13)Norway (14)Australia (9)9thCzechoslovakia (3)France (3)Poland (13)Canada (13)Canada (12)Sweden (8)

10th

--

Czechoslovakia (1)France (6)Italy (9)Poland (5)New Zealand (6)1998Nagano2002
Salt Lake
City

2006
Turin

2010
Vancouver

2014
Sochi

2018
Pyeongchang

2022
Beijing

1stGermany (44)

United States(43)

Russia (33)

Russia (38)

Russia (80)

United States(36)

China (61)

2ndJapan (41)Germany (33)

Ukraine (25)Germany (24)Ukraine (25)Canada (28)

Ukraine (29)

3rd

Norway (40)Austria (29)Germany (18)Canada (19)

United States(18)

Athletes from
Russia (24)Canada (25)

4thUnited States(34)

Russia (21)France (15)

Ukraine (19)Canada (16)

Ukraine (22)

United States
(20)

5th

Austria (34)

Norway (19)Austria (14)

United States(13)

Germany (15)France (20)Germany (19)6th

Russia (31)Canada (15)Canada (13)Slovakia (11)France (12)Germany (19)Austria (13)7th

Switzerland (23)

Switzerland (12)United States(12)

Austria (11)Austria (11)Belarus (12)France (12)8thFrance (22)Finland (8)Japan (9)Japan (11)Slovakia (7)Slovakia (11)Norway (7)9thFinland (19)Australia (7)Belarus (9)Belarus (9)Japan (6)Japan (10)Japan (7)10thSpain (8)New Zealand (6)Italy (8)Italy (7)Great Britain(6)

Norway (8)Italy (7)251

End of Appendix II252

Appendix III

Statement on Commission Practices

Appendix III

Document Request Letter

253

254

Index of Statutorily Mandated Areas of Study
Pub. L. 116-189; Sec. 11 (i)(B) –(i) a review of the most recent reforms undertaken by the United States
Olympic and Paralympic Committee:
Pages 34-35, 49, 56-60, 98-99, 104-105, 107, 117-119(ii) a description of proposed reforms to the structure of the UnitedStates Olympic and Paralympic Committee:
Pages 120-123, 131-134(iii) an assessment as to whether the board of directors of the UnitedStates Olympic and Paralympic Committee includes diverse members,
including athletes:
Pages 105-107(iv) an assessment of United States athlete participation levels in the
Olympic and Paralympic Games:
Pages 22-23, 51-52, 86-87, 92-96, 101-102, 107-112(v) a description of the status of any United States Olympic andParalympic Committee licensing arrangement:
Pages 35-37, 49, 97-101(vi) an assessment as to whether the United States is achieving thegoals for the Olympic and Paralympic Games set by the United States
Olympic and Paralympic Committee:
Pages 79, 83-87, 92-96, 105-112, 116

255(vii) an analysis of the participation in amateur athletics of (I) women; (II)disabled individuals; and (III) minorities:
Pages 29, 49-55, 105-112(viii) a description of ongoing efforts by the United States Olympic andParalympic Committee to recruit the Olympic and Paralympic Games tothe United States:
Pages 37, 112-116(ix) an evaluation of the functions of the national governing bodies (asdefined in section 220501 of title 36, United States Code) and an analysisof the responsiveness of the national governing bodies to athletes
concerning the duties of the national governing bodies under section
220524(a)(3) of title 36, United States Code:
Pages 37-39, 47-49, 55-56, 71-73, 75-76, 83, 93-103, 107-108(x) an assessment of the finances and the financial organization of theUnited States Olympics and Paralympic Committee:
Pages 30-32, 36, 48-49, 56-57, 61-62, 68-69, 77-83, 87-92, 94-96, 98-100, 104

256

Accessibility Index

Use the following index to find a specific table or long description for a given infographic, or continue to the next
page to browse the data in order of appearance within the main body of the report.

Percentage of Tokyo 2020 medalists trained in U.S. collegiate programs, page 257
Operation Gold Tables, page 257
Youth Sports Participation by Racial Group, page 257
SafeSport Incident Reports by Quarter, page 258
SafeSport Case Resolution Times with Case Type, pages 259-265
Governing Body SafeSport Contribution Fee Tiers, page 266
SafeSport Case Categories & Cost, page 266
Perceived Efficacy of the U.S. Center for SafeSport Among Movement Stakeholders, page 267
Awareness of the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s Centralized Disciplinary Database Among Coaches and Current
Athletes, page 267
Total Grassroots Spending by Governing Bodies in 2021, page 268
USOPC v. Governing Body Grassroots Spending in 2021, page 268
Obesity trends for children ages 2-19 years in the U.S. from 1963-1965 to 2017-2018, pages 269-270
American Physical Inactivity by Household Income, page 270
National Governing Body and USOPC Executive Compensation as Shares of Annual Expenditures in 2021/2022,
pages 271-272
Athlete v. Executive Income, page 273
Reported Athlete Compensation and Types, page 273
Family Spending on Sports by Demographics, page 274
Children’s Quality Time with Others by Racial Group, page 275
Children’s Mental Health and Physical Fitness by Racial Group, page 276
Stakeholder Awareness of Reforms to the Olympic and Paralympic Movement, page 277
Public Sentiment Toward the Olympic and Paralympic Movement Since the Legislative Reforms of 2017, page 277

257

Percentage of Tokyo 2020 medalists trained in U.S. collegiate programs
Two pie charts as illustrations of gold medals.
Left pie chart: 80% of Olympic medalists from the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games were trained in U.S. collegiate
programs, 20% did not. Footnote: Nearly 80% of Team USA’s Olympic medalists competed in the NCAA.
Sixty-five U.S. Paralympians in Tokyo (more than 25% of the 2020 U.S. Paralympic team) competed
collegiately as members of NCAA programs, including 30% of U.S. Paralympic medalists.
Right pie chart: 30% of Paralympic medalists from the 2020 Tokyo Paralympic Games were trained in U.S.
collegiate programs, and 70% were not. Footnote: About 75% of the more than 600 athletes on the 2020
Team USA roster for the Tokyo Games come from NCAA institutions of every division.

Operation Gold Tables
2017 Operation Gold Payments

2020 Operation Gold Payments

Medal
Placement

Paralympic
Medal
Payment

Olympic
Medal
Payment

Medal
Placement

Olympic andParalympic Medal
Payments

1st$7,500$37,500

1st$37,500

2nd$5,250$22,500

2nd$22,500

3rd$3,750$15,000

3rd$15,000

Footnote: This is just one example of a Paralympic Sport and its Olympic counterpart (prior to medals pay
equity). Inequity in Olympic and Paralympic medals payments persisted across the movement but variedamong sports.

Youth Sports Participation by Racial Group, 2018-2019
Race/
Ethnicity

Hispanic/
LatinoAmericanIndian/AlaskaNativePercentage
Participatingin Sports

47.4

48.1

Asian

NativeHawaiian or
Other PacificIslanderBlack orAfricanAmericanWhite

Two or
More
Races

54.2

52.7

47.3

62.9

59.1

External Link: Original Data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Return to Accessibility Index

258

SafeSport Incident Reports by Quarter2017 Data

2018 Data

FiscalQuarter

2017
Q1

2017
Q2

2017
Q3

2017
Q4

FiscalQuarter

2018
Q1

2018
Q2

2018
Q3

2018
Q4

Number of
Incident
Reports

No
Data

85

70

126

Number of
Incident
Reports

374

414

510

550

2019 Data

2020 Data

FiscalQuarter

2019
Q1

2019
Q2

2019
Q3

2019
Q4

FiscalQuarter

2020
Q1

2020
Q2

2020
Q3

2020
Q4

Number of
Incident
Reports

704

700

691

675

Number of
Incident
Reports

714

400

667

529

2021 Data

2022 & 2023 Data

FiscalQuarter

2021
Q1

2021
Q2

2021
Q3

2021
Q4

FiscalQuarter

2022
Q1

2022
Q2

2022
Q3

2022
Q4

2023
Q1

Number of
Incident
Reports

643

858

964

1243

Number of
Incident
Reports

1396

1295

1431

1565

2101

Return to Accessibility Index

259

2023 Q1 SafeSport Case Resolution Times with Case TypeDays Since Case StartedCase Type

Under 30

30-90

91-180181-365

Over 365

Total By CaseType

Intake

9

4

0

3

3

19

Preliminary
Inquiry

51

69

15

7

18

160

Under
Supervisor
Review

3

2

3

9

1

18

Awaiting
Investigator
Assignment

14

60

8

3

2

87

Investigation

8

80

98

103

146

435

Investigation
Under Review

0

0

4

5

100

109

Decision IssuedPending Appeal

0

3

1

5

5

14

In Arbitration

0

0

1

1

7

9

Total By Quarter

85

218

130

136

282

851

Return to Accessibility Index

260

2022 Q4 SafeSport Case Resolution Times with Case TypeDays Since Case StartedCase Type

Under 30

30-90

91-180181-365

Over 365

Total By CaseType

Intake

7

0

2

4

5

18

Preliminary
Inquiry

45

94

14

12

13

178

Under
Supervisor
Review

4

13

15

1

4

37

Awaiting
Investigator
Assignment

10

69

18

1

2

100

Investigation

3

33

96

109

146

387

Investigation
Under Review

0

0

7

15

107

129

Decision IssuedPending Appeal

0

1

1

5

4

11

In Arbitration

0

0

0

3

4

7

Total By Quarter

69

210

153

150

285

867

Return to Accessibility Index

261

2022 Q3 SafeSport Case Resolution Times with Case TypeDays Since Case StartedCase Type

Under 30

30-90

91-180181-365

Over 365

Total By CaseType

Intake

12

21

11

17

2

63

Preliminary
Inquiry

43

58

13

13

9

136

Under
Supervisor
Review

7

15

3

3

0

28

Awaiting
Investigator
Assignment

5

21

6

0

0

32

Investigation

17

66

108

89

173

453

Investigation
Under Review

0

0

2

21

96

119

Decision IssuedPending Appeal

0

6

6

3

3

18

In Arbitration

0

0

0

0

5

5

Total By Quarter

84

187

149

146

288

854

Return to Accessibility Index

262

2022 Q2 SafeSport Case Resolution Times with Case TypeDays Since Case StartedCase Type

Under 30

30-90

91-180181-365

Over 365

Total By CaseType

Intake

10

40

6

21

1

78

Preliminary
Inquiry

60

79

18

6

10

173

Under
Supervisor
Review

5

12

3

2

1

23

Awaiting
Investigator
Assignment

1

36

15

1

1

54

Investigation

11

47

117

119

147

441

Investigation
Under Review

1

1

5

21

87

115

Decision IssuedPending Appeal

0

4

1

1

6

12

In Arbitration

0

0

0

1

1

2

Total By Quarter

88

219

165

172

254

898

Return to Accessibility Index

263

2022 Q1 SafeSport Case Resolution Times with Case TypeDays Since Case StartedCase Type

Under 30

30-90

91-180181-365

Over 365

Total By CaseType

Intake

14

13

18

6

5

56

Preliminary
Inquiry

67

65

25

4

6

167

Under
Supervisor
Review

2

6

3

0

0

11

Awaiting
Investigator
Assignment

10

17

4

1

0

32

Investigation

14

83

97

165

133

492

Investigation
Under Review

0

0

2

36

90

128

Decision IssuedPending Appeal

0

6

2

2

3

13

In Arbitration

0

0

0

3

5

8

Total By Quarter

107

190

151

217

242

907

Return to Accessibility Index

2642021 Q2 SafeSport Case Resolution Times with Case TypeDays Since Case StartedCase Type

Under 30

30-90

91-180181-365

Over 365

Total By CaseType

Intake

3

10

4

5

1

23

Preliminary
Inquiry

45

85

19

13

8

170

Under
Supervisor
Review

1

1

4

0

2

8

Awaiting
Investigator
Assignment

7

33

4

1

2

47

Investigation

9

48

88

110

137

392

Investigation
Under Review

0

1

6

9

41

57

Decision IssuedPending Appeal

0

5

2

7

4

18

In Arbitration

0

0

1

0

1

2

Total By Quarter

65

183

128

145

196

717

Return to Accessibility Index

2652021 Q1 SafeSport Case Resolution Times with Case TypeDays Since Case StartedCase Type

Under 30

30-90

91-180181-365

Over 365

Total By CaseType

Intake

1

2

6

0

0

9

Preliminary
Inquiry

22

55

19

12

9

117

Under
Supervisor
Review

3

3

3

2

2

13

Awaiting
Investigator
Assignment

8

24

26

28

5

91

Investigation

2

46

39

102

143

332

Investigation
Under Review

0

0

0

8

42

50

Decision IssuedPending Appeal

0

3

2

4

4

13

In Arbitration

0

0

0

0

3

3

Total By Quarter

36

133

95

156

208

628

Return to Accessibility Index

266

Governing Body SafeSport Contribution Fee Tiers
Table Header Definitions
Low Revenue: The lower revenue threshold of a given tierHigh Revenue: The higher threshold of a given tierBase Fee: The base fee amount paid to SafeSport by a governing body

Tier

Low Revenue

High Revenue

Base Fee

1$15,000,000

Not Applicable

0.25% of revenue

2$10,000,000$14,999,999$37,4403$4,000,000$9,999,999$28,080

4$2,000,000$3,999,999$18,7205$1,000,000$1,999,999$9,3606

Not
Applicable$999,999$4,680

SafeSport Case Categories & Cost
Table Header Definitions
Case Bucket: SafeSport’s cost designation for a given set of cases
Resolution Category: The types of case resolutions in a given case bucket
Cost per: The cost charged to governing bodies per case type

Case Bucket

Resolution Category

Cost per“High Cost”
Cases

Criminal Disposition, Informal Resolution,
Formal Resolution, No violation$3,000“Medium Cost”
Cases

All Admin Closures$1,500“Low Cost”
Cases

No Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Declined,
Administrative Hold$150

Return to Accessibility Index267

Survey: Perceived Efficacy of the U.S. Center for SafeSport Among Movement Stakeholders
Survey question: How effective do you think the U.S. Center for SafeSport is meeting its goals of investigating,addressing, and preventing abuse in sports overall?
All Respondents

Current Athletes

Answer Choices

Response
Percent

Number of
Responses

Answer Choices

Response
Percent

Number of
Responses

Extremely effective

7.31%

128

Extremely effective

8.04%

54

Very effective

25.34%

444

Very effective

22.77%

153

Somewhat effective

41.38%

725

Somewhat effective

38.99%

262

Not so effective

18.04%

316

Not so effective

19.05%

128

Not at all effective

7.93%

139

Not at all effective

11.16%

75

Survey: Awareness of the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s Centralized Disciplinary Database Among
Coaches and Current AthletesSurvey question: Are you aware of the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s Centralized Disciplinary Database thattracks the expulsion, suspension, or restricted eligibility of coaches and affiliated staff connected with theOlympic and Paralympic movement?
Current Athletes

Coaches

Answer Choices

Response
Percent

Number of
Responses

Answer Choices

Response
Percent

Number of
Responses

Yes

59.04%

395

Yes

67.05%

177

No

40.96%

274

No

32.95%

87

Return to Accessibility Index

268

Total Grassroots Spending by Governing Bodies in 2021
The Commission identified three different categories of grassroots spending by governing bodies to moreaccurately determine their investments in broad-based youth sports participation. Note: this table does notinclude an outlier governing body that spent over 50 million in grants for category 1.
Table Definitions
Category 1: Spending that supports open competitions, training opportunities, events, or capacity-building for
local affiliate organizations for the purpose of expanding and increasing youth-sports participation.
Category 2: Spending that supports some broad-based youth-sport participation, but includes spendingfor closed competitions, governing body membership support, or resources to further high-performancedevelopment at the youth and junior levels.
Category 3: Spending labeled as “grassroots,” “sports development,” or broadly defined “membershipservices,” that cannot be separated from governing bodies’ administrative costs, closed competitions, thedevelopment of pathways for high-performance athletes, other high-performance-related expenses, orcoach training and education.

Category 1
Spending

Category 2
Spending

Category 3
Spending$3,039,136$16,621,208.50$37,297,839

USOPC v. Governing Body Grassroots Spending in 2021
Organization
Type

Total Spending

MedianSpending

Average
Spending

USOPC$92,231$7,750$9,223Governing Body

$108,193,790$431,358$2,847,205

Return to Accessibility Index

269

Obesity trends for children ages 2-19 years in the U.S. from 1963-1965 to 2017-2018(Data from CDC/NCHS)
External link to the original .pdf for this data set (see page five for the CDC NCHS table).
Girls ages 2-19
Survey Period

Sample size

Overweight %Obesity %Severe Obesity %1971-1974

7041

10.1

5.1

1

1976-1980

7351

9

5.6

1.3

1988-1994

10777

13.4

9.8

2.6

1999-2000

4039

13.4

13.8

3.6

2001-2002

4261

15

14.3

4.2

2003-2004

3961

16.3

16

4.7

2005-2006

4207

14.6

14.9

4.5

2007-2008

3249

15.4

15.9

4.3

2009-2010

3408

15.4

15

4.7

2011-2012

3355

14.5

17.2

5.5

2013-2014

3523

16

17.1

6.3

2015-2016

3340

17.6

17.8

4.9

2017-2018

2824

17.6

18

5.2

Survey Period

Sample size

Overweight %Obesity %Severe Obesity %1971-1974

7041

10.3

5.3

1

Boys ages 2-19

1976-1980

7351

9.4

5.4

1.2

1988-1994

10777

12.6

10.2

2.7

1999-2000

4039

15

14

3.7

2001-2002

4261

14.2

16.4

6.1

2003-2004

3961

16.6

18.2

5.4

2005-2006

4207

14.7

15.9

4.9

2007-2008

3249

14.3

17.7

5.5

2009-2010

3408

14.4

18.6

6.4

2011-2012

3355

15.4

16.7

5.7

2013-2014

3523

16.4

17.2

5.6

2015-2016

3340

15.7

19.1

6.3

2017-2018

2824

14.7

20.5

6.9

Return to Accessibility Index

270
All ages 2-19
Survey Period

Sample size

Overweight %Obesity %Severe Obesity %1971-1974

7041

10.2

5.2

1

1976-1980

7351

9.2

5.5

1.3

1988-1994

10777

13

10

2.6

1999-2000

4039

14.2

13.9

3.6

2001-2002

4261

14.6

15.4

5.2

2003-2004

3961

16.5

17.1

5.1

2005-2006

4207

14.6

15.4

4.7

2007-2008

3249

14.8

16.8

4.9

2009-2010

3408

14.9

16.9

5.6

2011-2012

3355

14.9

16.9

5.6

2013-2014

3523

16.2

17.2

6

2015-2016

3340

16.6

18.5

5.6

2017-2018

2824

16.1

19.3

6.1

American Physical Inactivity by Household Income (Data from SFIA)The Commission was unable to access the raw data for this data visual. but follow this external link for more
information from SFIA on their 2023 topline report.

Return to Accessibility Index

271

National Governing Body and USOPC Executive Compensation as Shares of Annual Expendituresin 2021/2022
The Commission analyzed the most recently available IRS 990 forms in order to compare national governing
body spending on executive compensation as a share of annual expenditures. The following table lists
organizations in order from lowest to highest annual expenditures.
Please note: for any cell labeled “no data,” the Commission did not receive that type of financial informationfrom the organization or publicly available documentation.

Governing Body

Executive
Compensation

Annual Expenditure

Executive Compensation as
Percentage of Annual Expenditure

Baseball

No Data$86,550

No Data

Badminton

No Data$558,202

No DataTeam Handball$109,097$636,316

17.15%

Surfing$108,178$672,391

16.09%

Pentathlon

No Data$695,611

No Data

Skateboarding$162,500$1,007,319

16.13%

National Wheelchair
Basketball
Association$60,000$1,037,579

5.78%

Roller Sports$72,639$1,039,568

6.99%

Goalball$150,000$1,139,470

13.16%

Racquetball$88,600$1,147,400

7.72%

KarateNo Data$1,251,028

No Data

Breaking

No Data$1,523,022

No DataACA$115,000$1,656,324

6.94%

Judo

$165,983$1,905,595

8.71%

Water Ski and Wake
Sports$139,464$1,918,337

7.27%

Artistic Swimming$100,601$2,011,984

5.00%

Table Tennis$141,458$2,043,975

6.92%

Curling$257,800$2,474,479

10.42%

Taekwondo$144,545$2,623,907

5.51%

Biathlon$130,000$2,766,014

4.70%

Diving$309,341$2,986,549

10.36%

Luge$141,281$3,005,383

4.70%

Bobsled/Skeleton$174,268$3,856,537

4.52%

Squash$1,168,602$4,221,199

27.68%

Climbing$310,062$4,394,746

7.06%

Speedskating$324,868$5,150,918

6.31%

Archery$775,880$5,258,471

14.75%

Shooting$300,000$5,359,672

5.60%

Boxing$437,172$5,596,634

7.81%

Weightlifting$190,899$7,478,633

2.55%

Field Hockey$714,410$9,596,330

7.44%

Return to Accessibility Index

272
Governing Body

Executive
Compensation

Annual Expenditure

Executive Compensation as
Percentage of Annual Expenditure

Rugby$658,278$9,596,526

6.86%

Softball$212,946$10,627,823

2.00%

Fencing$544,535$11,411,939

4.77%

Lakeshore
Foundation

No Data$11,747,024

No Data

Water Polo

$722,830$12,188,726

5.93%

Rowing$1,198,059$12,615,649

9.50%

Cycling$2,097,774$13,602,115

15.42%

Sailing$1,557,634$14,102,629

11.04%

Wrestling$2,093,553$14,823,467

14.12%

Basketball$2,310,092$17,125,677

13.49%

Figure Skating$921,127$18,981,966

4.85%

Triathlon$1,346,290$20,047,018

6.72%

Volleyball$2,221,344$22,513,930

9.87%

Equestrian$1,912,095$27,498,854

6.95%

Gymnastics$1,696,501$31,215,596

5.43%

Ski and Snowboard$867,706$31,340,669

2.77%

Track and Field$7,339,601$34,135,508

21.50%

Bowling Congress$1,255,000$34,446,673

3.64%

Swimming$3,598,060$36,531,692

9.85%

Hockey$1,809,699$50,724,443

3.57%

Soccer$8,592,985$145,087,772

5.92%

Golf

$11,374,572$263,194,534

4.32%

Tennis Association$8,879,571$274,986,697

3.23%

USOPC

$6,527,748$295,610,741

2.20%

Basque Pelota

No Data

No Data

No Data

Return to Accessibility Index

273

Survey: Athlete v. Executive Income
The Commission surveyed high-performance athletes and executives/board members of national governing
bodies on their estimated individual income. What follows is a table comparing the two groups.

Surveyed Income
BracketPercent ofAthletes
Reporting

Percent of
Number of Athletes
Executives/Board
ReportingMembers ReportingLess than $15,000

26.51%

2.27%

268

5

$15,000 - $24,999

10.19%

0.91%

103

2

$25,000 - $49,999

17.61%

3.64%

178

8

$50,000 - $74,999

13.06%

6.36%

132

14

$75,000 - $99,999

10.09%

12.27%

102

27$100,000 - $149,999

9.89%

15.45%

100

34

More than $150,000

12.66%

59.09%

128

130

Number of Executives/
Board Members Reporting

Survey: Reported Athlete Compensation and Types, 2018-2022
The Commission surveyed high-performance athletes and asked whether they received financial
compensation for their participation in the Olympic and Paralympic movement from 2018-2022. 50.3%
reported yes (326 athletes reporting), while 49.7% reported no (322 athletes reporting).
The following table shows the types of compensation received by athletes who answered “yes,” but please
note that athletes were able to respond more than once depending on their compensation makeup.

Compensation Type

Percentage of Responses forCompensation Type

Number of Responses forCompensation Type

Salary

4.8%

26

Award

20.3%

110

Bonus

12.8%

69

Stipend

44.0%

238

Sponsorship

11.5%

62

Other

6.7%

36

Return to Accessibility Index

274

Survey: Family Spending on Sports by Demographics (Data from Aspen Institute)
The following data tables were sourced from the Aspen Institute’s 2022 Youth Sports Parent Surveys. The
original data can be found on the Costs to Play Trends page on their website.

Annual Spending by Child’s Sport

Annual Spending by Household Income

Sport

AnnualSpending

Household Income

AnnualSpending

Soccer$1,188.00$150,000 or more

$2,068Basketball$1,002.00$50,000-$149,999$940

Baseball$714.00

Less than $50,000$523

Tackle Football$581.00

Annual Spending by Child’s Gender

Annual Spending by Race/Ethnicity

GenderAnnualSpending

Race/Ethnicity

AnnualSpending

Female$921.00

Hispanic/Latino

$883

Male

$844.00

White

$881

Black

$574

Survey: Family Spending on Sports by Community Type (Data from Aspen Institute)
The following data tables were sourced from the Aspen Institute’s 2022 Youth Sports Parent Surveys. The
original data can be found on the Costs to Play Trends page on their website.

Community Type

AnnualSpending

Rural$659.74

Suburban$1,330.27

Urban$1,100.89

Return to Accessibility Index

275

Survey: Children’s Quality Time with Others by Racial Group (Data from Aspen Institute)
The following data tables were sourced from the Aspen Institute’s 2022 Youth Sports Parent Surveys. The
original data can be found on the Physical & Mental Health Trends page on their website.
Quality Time with Parents
Race/Ethnicity

Decreased

Not Changed

Increased

White

12.2%

38.4%

49.3%

Black or African
American

12.7%

31.4%

55.8%

Hispanic, Latino, or
Spanish Origin

14.2%

29.7%

56.1%

Race/Ethnicity

Decreased

Not Changed

Increased

White

14.7%

48.8%

36.6%

Black or African
American

12.0%

39.6%

48.4%

Hispanic, Latino, or
Spanish Origin

13.5%

40.2%

46.3%

Race/Ethnicity

Decreased

Not Changed

Increased

White

11.5%

34.7%

53.8%

Black or African
American

14.5%

31.1%

54.4%

Hispanic, Latino, or
Spanish Origin

10.2%

33.4%

56.4%

Race/Ethnicity

Decreased

Not Changed

Increased

White

8.1%

37.8%

44.1%

Black or African
American

10.3%

26.5%

63.3%

Hispanic, Latino, or
Spanish Origin

6.7%

29.7%

63.5%

Quality Time with Siblings

Quality Time with Peers

Quality Time with Coaches

Return to Accessibility Index

276

Survey: Children’s Mental Health and Physical Fitness by Racial Group(Data from Aspen Institute)
The following data tables were sourced from the Aspen Institute’s 2022 Youth Sports Parent Surveys. The
original data can be found on the Physical & Mental Health Trends page on their website.
Mental HealthRace/Ethnicity

Decreased

Not Changed

Increased

White

11.0%

36.3%

52.7%

Black or African
American

9.8%

32.9%

57.2%

Hispanic, Latino, or
Spanish Origin

8.8%

25.3%

65.9%

Race/Ethnicity

Decreased

Not Changed

Increased

White

6.9%

22.0%

71.1%

Black or African
American

9.5%

17.7%

72.8%

Hispanic, Latino, or
Spanish Origin

6.8%

22.3%

70.9%

Physical Fitness

Return to Accessibility Index277

Survey: Stakeholder Awareness of Reforms to the Olympic and Paralympic Movement
The Commission surveyed movement stakeholders asking them to name one reform to the Olympic andParalympic movement. The following table contains the results.
Reform Answer

Awareness by Percentage

Awareness by Number of Respondents

SafeSport

13%

227

Athlete Representation

4%

79

Other

14%

248

No Awareness

69%

1,243

Survey: Public Sentiment Toward the Olympic and Paralympic Movement Since the Legislative
Reforms of 2017
The Commission surveyed the public asking them to share their perception of the Olympic and Paralympic
movement since the legislative reforms of 2017. The following table contains the results.
Feeling

Percentage of Respondents

More Positive Than Before Reforms

31%

More Negative Since Reforms

12%

About The Same46%

Not Sure11%

END OF ACCESSIBILITY INDEX

Return to Accessibility Index