CASES: General Report
The prevalence and characteristics of interpersonal violenceagainst children (IVAC) inside and outside sport in six
European countries

Citation:
Hartill, M., Rulofs, B., Lang, M., Vertommen, T., Allroggen, M., Cirera, E.,
Diketmueller, R., Kampen, J., Kohl, A., Martin, M., Nanu, I., Neeten, M., Sage, D.,
Stativa, E. (2021). CASES: Child abuse in sport: European Statistics – Project
Report. Ormskirk, UK: Edge Hill University.

1

Acknowledgements
The CASES partnership gratefully acknowledges the project funding received fromthe Erasmus+ programme of the European Union. The partnership is also grateful toSport England for providing additional funds. We would also like to acknowledge thecontribution of staff at Ipsos MORI for the thorough service they provided as well as
the support staff within all partner organisations who have supported the delivery ofthis project.
The project was led by Edge Hill University in partnership with the University ofWuppertal (Germany, co-lead), the University of Ulm (Germany), the University of
Antwerp (Belgium), the University of Vic (Catalonia, Spain), the University of Vienna(Austria), the National Institute for Mother and Child Health "AlessandrescuRusescu" (Romania), the German Sport Youth Federation (Germany), World
Athletics (Monaco), and Sport England (UK).
The authors would especially like to thank all those individuals who responded to thesurvey. Your participation has made a significant contribution to knowledge in thisarea and towards the design of safe environments for children in sport.

2

Table of Contents
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 6
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... 7
List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... 9
1.

Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 10
1.1 Key Findings.............................................................................................................. 12
1.2 Conclusion................................................................................................................. 15
1.3 Recommendations..................................................................................................... 16

2.

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 18
2.1 European Context...................................................................................................... 18
2.2 European Sport Context ............................................................................................ 18
2.3 The CASES Project and Partnership ......................................................................... 19

3. National Contexts of Partners ...................................................................................... 20
3.1 Austria ....................................................................................................................... 20
3.2 Belgium ..................................................................................................................... 20
3.3 Germany.................................................................................................................... 21
3.4 Romania .................................................................................................................... 22
3.5 Spain ......................................................................................................................... 22
3.6 UK ............................................................................................................................. 23
4. Methodology.................................................................................................................. 25
4.1 Research Questions .................................................................................................. 25
4.2 Definitions.................................................................................................................. 25
4.2.1 Interpersonal violence ......................................................................................... 25
4.2.2 Categories of interpersonal violence ................................................................... 26
4.2.3 Inclusive Approach .............................................................................................. 27
4.2.4 Defining ‘Sport’ .................................................................................................... 28
4.3 Respondents ............................................................................................................. 29
4.4 The Instrument .......................................................................................................... 293

4.4.1 Development of the questionnaire ....................................................................... 29
4.4.2 Operationalising criteria for ‘violent’ experiences ................................................. 29
4.4.3 Central items/questions ....................................................................................... 30
4.4.4 Dynamics and constellations of IVACS ............................................................... 31
4.5 Procedure .................................................................................................................. 32
4.5.1 Testing ................................................................................................................ 32
4.5.2 Translation .......................................................................................................... 33
4.5.3 Sampling ............................................................................................................. 33
4.5.4 Ethical considerations ......................................................................................... 33
4.5.5 Fieldwork ............................................................................................................ 34
4.5.6 Data processing and quality control..................................................................... 36
4.5.7 Statistical procedure ............................................................................................ 36
5. Results ........................................................................................................................... 37
5.1 Introduction and Sample ............................................................................................ 37
5.2 Characteristics of Sport Participation ......................................................................... 37
5.3 Prevalence of Interpersonal Violence Against Children.............................................. 39
5.3.1 Overall Interpersonal Violence Against Children (IVAC) ...................................... 40
5.3.2 Neglect................................................................................................................ 45
5.3.4 Psychological Violence........................................................................................ 48
5.3.5 Physical Violence ................................................................................................ 52
5.3.6 Non-Contact Sexual Violence (NCSV) ................................................................ 55
5.3.7 Contact Sexual Violence (CSV)........................................................................... 58
5.3.8 Prevalence of all CASES items ........................................................................... 61
5.4 Characteristics of interpersonal violence against children: ‘most serious experience’ 63
5.4.1 Age, frequency and duration of experience ......................................................... 63
5.4.2 Characteristics of ‘perpetrators’ ........................................................................... 67
5.4.3 Context and location of violence experience ....................................................... 71
5.4.4 Support/Disclosure .............................................................................................. 73
6. Summary and Discussion of Key Findings ................................................................. 75
6.1 Prevalence of interpersonal violence against children (IVAC) inside sport and outside
sport ................................................................................................................................ 75
6.2 Scope of CASES survey ............................................................................................ 75
6.3 Categories of IVAC inside sport and outside sport ..................................................... 76
6.3.1 Psychological violence ........................................................................................ 76
6.3.2 Physical violence................................................................................................. 76
6.3.3 Neglect................................................................................................................ 77
6.3.4 Sexual violence ................................................................................................... 774

6.4 Cross-national comparisons ...................................................................................... 78
6.5 Gender ...................................................................................................................... 79
6.5.1 Rates of victimization for boys and girls .............................................................. 79
6.5.2 Boys and Male-Sport ........................................................................................... 80
6.5.3 ‘Perpetrators’....................................................................................................... 81
6.6 Prevalence of IVAC and level of sport participation ................................................... 82
6.7 Organisational context of IVAC in sport ..................................................................... 83
6.8 Disclosure.................................................................................................................. 83
6.9 Overall experience of sport ........................................................................................ 84
7. Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 85
7.1 Temporal and cultural context of the survey sample .................................................. 85
7.2 Methodology and sample........................................................................................... 85
8. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 87
9. Recommendations....................................................................................................... 89
References ........................................................................................................................ 91
Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 96
1. Basic information for the total sample .......................................................................... 96
2. Prevalence Data: Item level ......................................................................................... 97
2.1 Inside sport ............................................................................................................ 97
2.2 Outside sport.......................................................................................................... 98
3. Sub-group differences: Characteristics of interpersonal violence against children: ‘most
serious experience’........................................................................................................ 100
3.1 Duration of experience per gender ....................................................................... 100
3.2 Duration of experience(s) per participation level ................................................... 101
3.3. Gender of perpetrators(s) and gender of respondent(s) ...................................... 103
Contact details ................................................................................................................ 104

5

List of Figures
Figure 1. The CASES partnership .......................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2: Overall experience in sport ................................................................................................... 38
Figure 3: Highest level of participation ................................................................................................. 39
Figure 4: Prevalence of IVAC inside & outside sport by country ......................................................... 40
Figure 5: Prevalence of categories of IVAC inside & outside sport ..................................................... 41
Figure 6: Prevalence of IVAC inside sport by gender & country .......................................................... 42
Figure 7: Prevalence of IVAC inside sport by highest level of participation ........................................ 43
Figure 8: Prevalence of neglect by country........................................................................................... 45
Figure 9: Prevalence of neglect inside sport by gender & country ....................................................... 46
Figure 10: Prevalence of neglect inside sport by highest level of participation .................................... 47
Figure 11: Prevalence of psychological violence by country ................................................................ 48
Figure 12: Prevalence of psychological violence inside sport by gender & country ............................. 49
Figure 13: Experience of psychological violence inside sport by highest level of participation ............ 50
Figure 14: Prevalence of physical violence by country ......................................................................... 52
Figure 15: Prevalence of physical violence inside sport by gender & country...................................... 53
Figure 16: Prevalence of Physical violence inside sport by highest level of participation .................... 54
Figure 17: Prevalence of non-contact sexual violence (NCSV) by country .......................................... 55
Figure 18: Prevalence of non-contact sexual violence (NCSV) inside sport by gender & country ....... 56
Figure 19: Prevalence of non-contact sexual violence (NCSV) inside sport by highest level ofparticipation ........................................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 20: Prevalence of contact sexual violence (CSV) by country .................................................... 58
Figure 21: Prevalence of contact sexual violence (CSV) inside sport by gender & country ................. 59
Figure 22: Prevalence of contact sexual violence (CSV) inside sport by highest level of participation 60
Figure 23: Age of onset of IVAC ........................................................................................................... 63
Figure 24: Age of cessation of IVAC .................................................................................................... 64
Figure 25: Frequency of IVAC experience ........................................................................................... 65
Figure 26: Duration of IVAC experience ............................................................................................... 66
Figure 27: Number of perpetrator(s) ..................................................................................................... 68
Figure 28: Gender of perpetrator(s) ..................................................................................................... 69
Figure 29: Role/Position of Perpetrator(s) ........................................................................................... 70
Figure 30: Sports Context of Experience ............................................................................................. 71
Figure 31: Location of Experience ....................................................................................................... 72
Figure 32: Disclosure & support – non-sexual violence ....................................................................... 73
Figure 33: Disclosure & support – sexual violence .............................................................................. 73

6

List of Tables
Table 1: Overview of items describing experiences of interpersonal violence against children ........... 31
Table 2: Overview of items relating to most serious experience of IVAC ............................................. 32
Table 3: Fieldwork dates by country ..................................................................................................... 34
Table 4: Achieved quotas for males and females in both age groups .................................................. 35
Table 5: Questionnaire completion time ............................................................................................... 35
Table 6: Most popular sports by gender ............................................................................................... 38
Table 7: Items by category, ranked by prevalence inside & outside sport ........................................... 61
Table 8: Cross-national comparisons: prevalence range of IVAC inside sport .................................... 78

7

The CASES Partnership
The CASES-Project is built on a collaborative partnership of universities, research
institutes and sport organisations. The project was led by Mike Hartill at Edge Hill
University in UK, who was supported by a steering group of Bettina Rulofs (co-lead,
University of Wuppertal in Germany), Melanie Lang (Edge Hill University, UK) andTine Vertommen (University of Antwerp, Belgium).
The survey on interpersonal violence in sport was applied in six European countries.
Academics from seven universities and research institutes in those countries
supported the project in each phase. Partners from three sport organisations – one
international (World Athletics) and two national (Sport England and German Sports
Youth) – consulted the project in order to increase transfer into the field of practicalsport.

FIGURE 1. THE CASES PARTNERSHIP

8

List of Abbreviations
ASKÖ

Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Sport und Körperkultur in Österreich

CASES

Child Abuse in Sport: European Statistics

CPSU

Child Protection in Sport UnitCSA

El Casejo Superior de Deportes (High Sport Council)

CSV

Contact sexual violence

DOSB

Deutscher Olympischer Sportbund (German Olympic Sports
Confederation)

DSJ

Deutsche Sportjugend (German Sports Youth)

EACEA

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

EU

European Union

EHU

Edge Hill University

EPAS

Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport

IAAF

International Association of Athletics Federations (World Athletics)

IM

Ipsos MORIIVInterpersonal Violence

IVAC

Interpersonal Violence Against Children

NCSV

Non-Contact Sexual Violence

NGB

National Governing BodyNGO

Non-Governmental Organisation

NSPCC

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children

UN

United Nations

UNICEF

United Nations Children's Fund

UNHCR

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UK

United Kingdom

WHO

World Health Organization

91. Executive Summary
Introduction
The project Child Abuse in Sport: European Statistics (CASES) aimed to provide
evidence on the prevalence of interpersonal violence experienced by children(people under the age of 18) who participate in sport, across different national
contexts. A partnership of seven research organisations in six European countries
and three sport organisations was established to deliver the project, led by Edge Hill
University in the United Kingdom (UK).
The investigation of prevalence of abuse in sport is a relatively new area of researchborn out of work over the past thirty years that has tried to highlight and expose childabuse in sport. Pioneers in the field, such as Celia Brackenridge, Peter Donnelly,Kari Fasting, Sandra Kirby, and Trish Leahy, have all contributed to the attempt toquantify the scale of the problem. Such efforts support the endeavours of victims andsurvivors who have challenged the abuse they were subjected to, through the courts,
through the media, through advocacy and campaigning, and through theircontributions to research.
In a similar vein, then, this study sought to build on previous quantitative researchwhilst offering some contribution to the ongoing and sustained efforts of those withlived experience of abuse and violence in sport to bring about change in theirrespective national and local contexts. Increasingly, whilst still rare, meaningful
partnership between research and the sport sector seem possible in this field,
illustrated here through the participation of Sport England, the German Sport Youth,
and World Athletics.
Concept and Scope
Given the international dimension of the study, CASES drew on the concept of‘interpersonal violence’ as adopted by the World Health Organisation (Krug et al.,2002) and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2011). This concept wasconsidered appropriate to ensure a broad and inclusive approach to harm
experienced by children that could be applied in all partner countries. For many, theterm ‘violence’ may have strong connotations to physical aggression and physicalinjury, however, in recent years it has become far more common to find it applied toother categories of harm and this is the approach taken here.
It is important, then, to understand that the data generated by this study is notconfined to what are often considered the ‘most serious’ experiences of child abuse
and neglect. This approach is justified in at least two ways. First, as noted, national
and international definitions are far broader than conceptualisations of child abuse
within popular discourse (especially the media) and it is important that research
captures the full breadth of potentially harmful experiences by providing, as far as
possible, the opportunity for respondents to define and report their own experiences.
Second, sport (as with other child-friendly spaces) should not just be free from theso-called ‘serious’ forms of abuse and neglect, it should be free from any harm,harassment, violence and abuse, serving as a positive, safe and healthy force within
the lives of all children.

10The Study
The research was guided by the following overarching question:
What is the prevalence of interpersonal violence against children activein organised sport, inside and outside sport?
Therefore, our focus is on participants of sport and the interpersonal violence theyexperience, whether inside sport or beyond.
Subsidiary questions were also investigated:•••

What are the characteristics of ‘victims’?
What are the characteristics of ‘perpetrators’?
What are the further characteristics of the experience, in relation to:o Frequency
o Durationo Locationo Organisational settingo Disclosure

Investigating the prevalence of any experience or behaviour, across different
countries, is complex. Child abuse and neglect is clearly an emotive and sensitive
issue and a challenging area of research. Therefore, establishing prevalence ofexperiences of child abuse, or interpersonal violence in childhood, is far fromstraightforward. The conceptualisation and definition of the problem, as well as theapproach to collecting data, are critical factors. These are explained more fully in thereport.
Definitions
Our conceptualisation of interpersonal violence against children is based on four
categories of violence that typically underpin international and national definitions.
Therefore, to answer the research questions, the project team constructed aquestionnaire based on the following categories of interpersonal violence:••••

Physical violence: acts that result in actual or potential physical harm to achild
Psychological violence: non-physical acts that cause, or potentially cause,
harm to the psychological health or development of a childSexual violence: the inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any
unlawful or psychologically harmful sexual activity
Neglect: failures to meet a child’s basic physical or psychological needs

Questionnaire and Sample
Approval for the research protocol was provided by University partners’ research
ethics committees.
The project recruited Ipsos MORI (IM) – an international market research company
with expertise in online-polls on social issues – to design and programme thequestionnaire in a suitable, accessible online format.
Following a pilot study with 300 UK respondents, the questionnaire was administeredby IM in the six participating countries (two surveys were administered in Belgium,11differentiated into Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Brussels-Wallonia)
using samples of individuals (n=1,472) aged 18-30 years who had participated in
sport during childhood.
Samples were comparable by gender (male/female) and age group (18-24/25-30).
The final sample consisted of 10,302 individuals. This is one of the largest samples,
if not the largest, ever studied internationally on child abuse and neglect in sport.
Fieldwork took place between 22 October and 14 December 2020. IM collated thedata and supplied this to the project team. Statistical analyses were then applied to
calculate prevalence rates.
The main part of the questionnaire consists of 35 items grouped into five categories
of interpersonal violence (psychological, physical, neglect, sexual (non-contact),
sexual (contact)). Each category included a number of items (presented as
descriptions of behaviour or experiences) for respondents to consider. The survey
focused particularly on the sport context, but also asked respondents to state
whether the experience was inside sport or outside sport.
For respondents who indicated one or more experiences of interpersonal violence asa child, additional questions were presented in order to address the subsidiary
research questions.
This first publication reports prevalence at the broadest level of analysis focusing on:
type of interpersonal violence, the national context, gender, and performance level.
The report also provides additional detail regarding victim age (at onset/cessation);frequency, duration, and location; number, gender and role of perpetrators;
disclosure; and support. Future publications will provide further analysis.

1.1 Key Findings
1. The experience of interpersonal violence in children's and youth sport is a
widespread problem.
In all countries surveyed, around three quarters of respondents reported having had
at least one experience of interpersonal violence inside sport before the age of 18.
2. Adults who played sport in their youth are overwhelmingly positive about
their overall experience of sport.
Despite the rates of interpersonal violence against children inside sport, 85% of
respondents rated their overall experience of sport as either ‘good (42%) or ‘very
good’ (43%). Less than 5% stated their overall of sport was either ‘poor’ (3%) or ‘very
poor’ (1%). This is a very positive outcome for the sport sector, but it may alsosuggest that interpersonal violence is, to some degree, normalized within sport.
3. The prevalence of interpersonal violence against children who participate
in sport is marginally lower inside sport than outside sport.
82% of respondents reported at least one experience of interpersonal violenceagainst children outside sport, compared to 75% of respondents who reported atleast one experience inside sport. This demonstrates that interpersonal violenceagainst children and young people is a widespread problem in European societiesthat affects sport as much as other societal areas.
124. The prevalence of specific categories of interpersonal violence againstchildren inside sport varies.
The most common experience of interpersonal violence against children inside sport
was psychological violence (65%); followed by physical violence (44%); neglect (37%);
and non-contact sexual violence (35%); the least common experience inside sport was
contact sexual violence (20%).
5. The prevalence of interpersonal violence against children inside sport isbroadly similar across national contexts.
Inside sport, interpersonal violence against children (across all categories) varies
from 70% in Austria (lowest) to 80% in Belgium Brussels-Wallonia (highest).
6. The prevalence of interpersonal violence against children inside sport ishigher for boys than girls in all countries.
Outside sport, experiences of interpersonal violence against children were reported
significantly more often by women. However, inside sport, experiences ofinterpersonal violence against children were reported significantly more often bymen. Inside sport, 79% of male respondents and 71% of female respondents
reported at least one experience of any type of interpersonal violence againstchildren. The range for girls varied from 65% in Belgium Flanders (lowest) to 75% inBrussels-Wallonia, Germany and Spain (highest). The range for boys varied from
72% in Austria (lowest) to 84% in Brussels-Wallonia (highest). The genderdifferences per category (inside sport) are:a. psychological violence
68% of men and 61% of women reported at least one experience of
psychological violence inside sport before age 18. With the exception ofAustria, men were significantly more likely to experience psychologicalviolence inside sport.
b. physical violence
52% of men and 36% of women reported at least one experience of physicalviolence inside sport before age 18. Across all countries, men weresignificantly more likely to experience physical violence inside sport.
c. neglect
44% of men and 30% of women reported at least one experience of neglectinside sport before age 18. Across all countries, men were significantly more
likely to experience neglect inside sport.
d. non-contact sexual violence (NCSV)
38% of men and 32% of women reported at least one experience of NCSV
inside sport before age 18, however, the difference is significant in the UK and
Belgium only.
e. contact sexual violence (CSV)
26% of men and 14% of women reported at least one experience of CSV
inside sport before age 18. With the exception of Austria, men weresignificantly more likely to have experienced CSV inside sport.
13

7. The prevalence of interpersonal violence against children is lowest for
respondents in recreational sport and highest for those who competed ininternational sport.
Overall, the prevalence for any form of interpersonal violence against children is 68%
at the recreational level and 84% at the international level. The jump fromrecreational sport to local competitive sport, in particular, seems to increase the riskof experiencing violence.
Further findings:
The following findings relate only to respondents’ ‘most serious’ experience for eachcategory of interpersonal violence against children inside sport:
8. Interpersonal violence against children occurs across the full range oforganisational settings in which sport is provided for children, but mostoften in the sport club.
Interpersonal violence against children was indicated across a range oforganisational contexts, including within elite sport settings and within private
settings. However, across all categories, the sport club is by far the most frequent
location for interpersonal violence against children.
9. Perpetrators of interpersonal violence against children inside sport werepredominantly identified as male, but not exclusively.
Across all categories of interpersonal violence against children, males were mostoften identified as the perpetrator(s). Females were indicated less often as
perpetrators, yet – against common expectations – were responsible for a
substantial proportion of the experiences reported by respondents.
10. Interpersonal violence against children is perpetrated by both adults andpeers.
Interpersonal violence in sport is perpetrated by peers (e.g. team members) as wellas adults. Overall, peers are more often the ‘perpetrator’. Among adults, the coach or
instructor is most often the perpetrator.
11. Perpetrators of interpersonal violence against children are usually known
to the child.
On average, the experience involved an unknown adult in only 6% of cases,
whereas coaches, other sports personnel, and other known adults were involved in
50% of cases on average. Unknown peers were involved in 21% of cases compared
to 37% of known peers.
12. The risk of experiencing longer durations of interpersonal violence
increases with the level of performance.
Respondents who performed their sport at the national and international competitive
level before the age of 18 indicated longer durations of psychological, physical, andnon-contact sexual violence than those at lower competitive levels or in recreational
sport.

14

13. The majority of respondents experiencing interpersonal violence againstchildren inside sport did not disclose their most serious experience and adisclosure to someone inside sport was rare.
The majority of respondents experiencing interpersonal violence against children did
not disclose the (most serious) experience. Only a very small proportion ofparticipants (4% – 6%) asked for support within the sport context. Disclosures were
far more likely to be made to a family member or friend. Beyond friends and family,
the sectors most likely to receive a disclosure were education and health.

1.2 Conclusion
The aim of the CASES project was to provide robust data on the prevalence of childabuse and neglect inside (and outside) sport across different national contexts.
A key strength of the study is that the same questionnaire was administered in thesame way, at the same time, in seven separate national contexts, with young adultrespondents (age 18-30) who stated they had participated in sport before age 18 andwith samples equally weighted for gender (male/female) and age (18-24/25-30). The
CASES study is unique in this regard. In particular, it draws on a sample of young
respondents, therefore, the experiences reported refer to recent experiences rather
than so-called ‘historical cases’.
The CASES study has identified prevalence rates for five categories of interpersonal
violence against children in sport, based on respondents (aged 18-30) indicating one
or more relevant experience, at least once, before age 18. These rates range from
65% for psychological violence to 20% for contact sexual violence. Whilst somenational differences were evident, rates of IVAC were similar across all countries,
inside and outside sport.
Therefore, our general conclusion is that (potentially) harmful behaviour is a frequent
and widespread experience for children within sport (in Europe). This leads us tosuggest that sport may not provide the protective, positive and healthy environment
for children that is sometimes assumed and claimed.
The survey also found a significant difference in prevalence of interpersonal
violence, inside sport, between boys and girls. Perhaps surprisingly, the rates forboys were higher than for girls for all categories, inside sport. We offer someobservations on this in the report (see section 6.5). However, the rates for females,
whilst generally lower, is nevertheless also high. This factor is far more important
than any numerical differences within the sample. CASES has demonstrated thatinterpersonal violence against children in sport is a serious and widespread problem.
Certainly, on the basis of our analysis, interpersonal violence against children in
sport evidently persists in all countries involved in the study and there is no reason tobelieve that this is confined to these countries alone.
For some countries (inside and outside this project), prevention responses from thesport sector have, to varying degrees, been slow, narrowly focused, poorly
resourced, and with little or no independent oversight or evaluation. In somecountries, despite over 30 years of international research and advocacy in this field,
alongside the testimony of many abused athletes, policy implementation has barely
begun.
15

A key feature of addressing interpersonal violence against children and young
people in sport (and all athletes) is to ensure that strategy is informed, not just bywhat leaders and their organisations see, but also by independent and robust
scientific evidence. The CASES project provides an important part of the evidential
picture that sport leaders, legislators and policymakers require in their efforts toimprove the experience of sport for all children and to improve the lives of children,
families and communities, through sport. Ultimately, this is the key performanceindicator or measure of the sport sector.
Addressing interpersonal violence against children in sport requires cultural change.
Therefore, in order to meaningfully address the problem, we conclude that proactive
leadership is required within all national contexts and across the whole sport sector(public, private, and voluntary). We leave it to those with the authority to make suchdecisions in relation to sport to determine the extent and timing of such change andthe resources required.
We draw this conclusion on the basis of our findings, however, we would also want
to recognise that some countries have already undertaken substantial and significant
action in this regard. We very much welcome such action. We also want to recognise
the persistent endeavours of individuals within the sport sector who work tirelessly
and selflessly to provide meaningful and safe opportunities for children and for the
improvement of children’s lives. We very much hope that you will see this study as acontribution to your work – perhaps more vital now than ever – rather than anegation of it.
The CASES findings can now be used by sports organisations to further substantiate
and develop their measures to protect children from harm in sport. We offer somerecommendations based on these findings, again recognising that the distance somecountries and organisations have travelled in the protection and safeguarding ofchildren in sport may make these recommendations more or less relevant.

1.3 Recommendations
A. Government departments or ministries responsible for sport should:
1. Ensure general policies and strategies on child protection and ‘safeguarding’include and apply to sport.
2. Incorporate systematic, longitudinal research on prevalence of interpersonal
violence against children in sport into national strategies and action plans for
sport.
3. Provide an independent body or agency where those affected byinterpersonal violence in sport can report their experiences and receive help
and support.
4. Ensure national agencies or federations are supported and appropriately
resourced to introduce and/or increase efforts to raise awareness of andprevent interpersonal violence in sport.
5. Ensure prevention efforts extend to the local level (e.g. voluntary sports clubs)
and are not limited to ‘umbrella’ sports federations.
16

B. International, national and federal bodies should:
6. Acknowledge all forms of interpersonal violence against children inside sport.
7. Introduce measures to prevent interpersonal violence in sport and ensurechildren’s rights are incorporated into all levels of organisational structures in
sport.
8. Ensure strategic policy is informed by evidence on prevalence rates ofinterpersonal violence against children.
9. Evaluate and improve the efficacy of prevention measures throughlongitudinal assessment of interpersonal violence against children in sport.
C. Prevention strategies should:
10. Include compulsory training across all categories of interpersonal violenceagainst children, including peer violence, for those with responsibility forchildren in sport.
11. Establish sport-specific and independent contact points for support, advice,complaints and reports (e.g. a helpline).
12. Acknowledge the important role that sports personnel have in recognisinginterpersonal violence, receiving and handling disclosures, and the support
they need to carry out these roles safely and effectively.
13. Address interpersonal violence against children at all levels of sport (fromrecreational grassroot to competitive and elite sport) and be sensitive to thepotential for heightened risk in competitive sport.
D. Training and education should:
14. Convey that interpersonal violence against children can occur in different
forms and that some forms (e.g. peer violence, psychological violence) are
more prevalent than others.
15. Convey that the risk for interpersonal violence against children might increaseas the child moves beyond recreational sport.
16. Recognize that interpersonal violence against children is a significant problem
for both males and females and that boys and men may be particularly
underrepresented in official reports.
17. Recognise that children participating in sport may have experienced
interpersonal violence in other contexts and that adults in sport may be
important contact points to support children.
18. Recognise that interpersonal violence in sport does not stop at age 18.

17

2. Introduction
Recent years have seen unprecedented attention on the abuse of children andathletes in sport. Strategic responses are critical and must be informed by robust
evidence on the scale and nature of these abuses. The project “Child Abuse in Sport– European Statistics” (CASES) is designed to support this endeavour.
This report presents first key findings of the CASES study into the prevalence ofchild abuse – or interpersonal violence against children – within six European
countries. It is designed to inform those working in the field of organised sport, sportmanagement, sport politics and child protection. Further and more detailed
publications will follow in academic publication formats. For more details on the
results in the participating countries, respective country reports are published.

2.1 European Context
The European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the Council ofEurope have all acknowledged that sport is a setting where children are at risk ofviolence and notes that progress in preventing such violence has been hampered by,among other things, a lack of robust data and research, including empirical work on
the prevalence of violence against children (e.g. World Health Organisation, 2015).
Consequently, it is recommended that EU Member States conduct regular, robust
studies into the prevalence of child maltreatment, including all forms of violenceagainst children, and to ensure such studies focus not only on the various types or
categories of maltreatment but also on risk factors, age, gender and socio-economic
determinants to better understand the scale and backgrounds of the problem and to
inform future preventive programmes.

2.2 European Sport Context
Reference to sport as a setting where violence occurs and as an institution withresponsibility for protecting those involved was first made in 1975 in the European
Sport for All Charter (Council of Europe, 1975), which called for the introduction of
methods ‘…to safeguard sport and sportsmen [sic] from exploitation for political,
commercial or financial gain, and from practices that are abusive and debasing’(Council of Europe, 1975, Article 5). An updated version of the Charter later referred
specifically to implementing steps in sport to prevent ‘sexual harassment and abuse,particularly of children, young people and women’ (Council of Europe, 1992a, Article
1).
Since then, various European-level actors have established policies calling for action
to prevent and manage violence and exploitation in sport. In its 2007 White Paper on
Sport, the European Commission Member States and sports organisations
cooperated on building a robust evidence base on the magnitude of the problem andon disseminating information on, among others, best practice for preventing andmanaging such exploitation.
The prevention and management of sexual violence against adult and child athletes
also features prominently in European-level policy. For example, the Resolution on
the Prevention of Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Women, Young People and18

Children in Sport (Council of Europe, 2000) and the Resolution on Women and Sport(European Parliament, 2002) urge European member states to develop national
policies that define harassment and abuse in sport and raise awareness of thesebehaviours. Meanwhile, the Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual
Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (Council of Europe, 2007) called for better
understanding of the extent of violence against children in and beyond sport and theintroduction of measures to prevent and manage this. According to the Council ofEurope (2010) sport and sport-related organisations are responsible for ensuringthat:… safeguards are in place within the context of an overall framework ofsupport and protection for children, young people and women, both to protect
them from sexual harassment and abuse and to prevent the exploitation ofchildren, particularly those who demonstrate precocious ability. (Council ofEurope, 2010: 10.10)
The protection of minors from abuse is specifically highlighted in the EU Work Planfor Sport 2014-17 and the EU Work Plan for Sport 2017-2020 identifies the objectiveof strengthening the evidence base for sport, identifying the integrity of sport, inparticular promoting good governance, including the safeguarding of minors, as a
key topic; Annex I of the Plan refers specifically to a study on the prevalence of childabuse in sport. The outputs of this project make a clear and significant contribution to
the delivery of the Plan.

2.3 The CASES Project and Partnership
The project aimed to develop insights pertinent to strategic efforts to prevent childabuse, exploitation and violence in sport and to develop resources for the sport
sector that will support sport organisations to safeguard children’s welfare.
To this end, the principal objective of the project was to collect scientifically robust
evidence on the scale, dynamics and constellations of interpersonal violence againstchildren in sport (IVACS). In undertaking this task, the CASES partnership fully
acknowledges that abuse and violence does not only affect those under the age of
18 and that studies of adult experiences of violence in sport are also required.
CASES is a collaborative partnership between seven European universities, twonational sport council’s and one international sport federation (see Figure 1).

19

3. National Contexts of Partners
3.1 Austria
Austria has a population of approximately 8.0 million people. Sport in Austria isorganised in a governmental and a non-governmental sector. The latter includes theAustrian Olympic Committee, the Austrian Sports Association for the Disabled aswell as three umbrella organisations who record 2.7 members in over 14,000 sport
clubs.
Research on the prevalence of interpersonal violence against children in Austrian
sport has not yet been conducted. However, Austrian sport introduced prevention
measures in 2006 when ASKÖ, one of the three national umbrella sportorganisations, initiated the national ‘Call4Girls/Call4Boys’ project. This established atelephone helpline for any child or adult who has experienced sexual violence insport – one of the few such initiatives of its kind in EU sport at that time.
As a result of this project, some governing bodies introduced designated individuals
with responsibility for disseminating information and advice on violence in sport
within their organisation (known as ‘Trust Persons’). These roles are now establishedin each national sport federation and in all national governing bodies of sport inAustria. In 2015 a ‘Code of Ethics’ was first implemented to develop a moredemocratic and gender-sensitive culture within clubs as a way of preventing genderbased violence in sport. Moreover, an established working group aiming at
preventing sexualized violence in sport – in collaboration with the organisation 100%
Sport – offer advanced education and training for coaches and others working insport organisations to help implement prevention measures.
Currently, Austrian policy makers are planning to establish a central clearing agency
to provide support for individuals affected by abuse in sport.

3.2 Belgium
Belgium is a federal state with a population of approximately 11.5 million people andcomprising Dutch, French and German speaking communities.
Violence and abuse in sport is a rather new topic in sport policy in Belgium.
However, the topic of sexual violence in general is not. In 1996, the case of Belgian
serial killer and child abuser Marc Dutroux drew public and political attention
worldwide and was a catalyst for major changes in police investigation andlegislation on child abuse. However, it was not until after the public disclosures ofchild sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, in 2010, that the context of sport wasinvestigated in Belgium. The Flemish Minister of Sport announced the development
and installation of a prevention policy, however, there were no official or public
disclosures of sexual violence in sport from athletes or any data on prevalence.
Belgian sports federations are commonly split into Flemish and French-speaking
sections. As sport is organised separately within each language community, policies
differ across communities. This study is the first attempt to estimate the prevalenceof the problem in the Brussels-Wallonia region.

20

In Flanders, the first prevalence study into interpersonal violence against children in
sport was published in 2016 and found that 38% of adults had experienced
psychological violence, 14% sexual violence and 11% physical violence, in sport,
before the age of 18 (Vertommen et al., 2016). The findings also showed thatphysical violence was experienced more by boys, compared to girls. Psychologicalviolence, including bullying, was reported equally by boys and girls. Sexual violence
was reported more by girls, but with regard to the most severe types of contact
sexual violence, there were no gender differences. In Wallonia-Brussels, currently,
no evidence on the magnitude of interpersonal violence in sport is available. The
current study will be the first to report on this.

3.3 Germany
Germany has a population of approximately 83 million people. The German Olympic
Sport Federation (Deutscher Olympischer Sportbund [DOSB]) is the umbrella
agency for German sport. The DOSB records 27.6 million memberships in over
88,000 sports clubs. The German Sport Youth (Deutsche Sportjugend [DSJ] is the
youth organisation of the DOSB and represents the interests of 9.6 million young
people under the age of 26.
Despite an early study (Klein & Palzkill, 1998) revealing sexual harassment andabuse of women and girls in German sport, the general sport sector with a few
exceptions ignored the problem of violence in children’s sport for a long period.
However, a Commissioner for Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) was established at thelevel of the German government in 2010 following media coverage of CSA inschools, churches and sport. At this point the national sport agencies (DOSB and
DSJ) began to develop policies to prevent sexual violence in sport. This included theintroduction of a designated individual responsible for prevention in each member
organisation.
From 2019, German sport organisations are required to complete 15 separate
actions for the prevention of sexual violence. These actions include a risk analysis
and an intervention plan and are a condition of central funding to be received fromthe DOSB and DSJ.
Significant research has been undertaken to measure the magnitude of interpersonal
violence in sport in Germany. The research project »Safe Sport«, based on a sample
of 1799 elite athletes (over the age of 16), found that more than every third elite
athlete (37.6%) has experienced sexual violence inside sport, 11% experiencing a‘severe’ form of sexual violence. Female athletes were affected significantly more
often than male athletes (Ohlert et al., 2018).
The study also revealed a prevalence rate of 30% overall for physical violence and
86% of respondents reported at least one situation of psychological violence. If theseexperiences are categorised according to severity, it emerges that 21% of theathletes stated that they had experienced severe psychological violence in thecontext of sport (mainly relating to permanent or recurring experiences of violence)(Ohlert et al., in press).
Compared to the Netherlands and Belgium (Flanders), where an identicalquestionnaire was used in the survey by Vertommen et al. (2016), the prevalence inGermany for all three forms of violence (psychological, physical and sexualised
21

violence) is significantly higher than in these two countries (Ohlert et al., 2020). This
study is restricted to the field of elite sport, data on interpersonal violence in leisureand recreational sport settings is missing up to date.

3.4 Romania
Romania has a population of approximately 19.5 million people. Violence againstchildren in sports has received very little attention in Romania. Policies targetingchild abuse do not reference abuse in sport. Documents to raise awareness andcombat forms of child abuse, developed by UNICEF and NGOs in Romania, refer tothe places where forms of violence can occur, such as the home, family, school,
child care institutions, etc., however sport is not mentioned (Marin & Zaharia, 2016).
Research on abuse has mainly focused on the institutionalized child (Stativa et al.,2002), the child in families (Anghelescu et al., 2006), and bullying in schools(Gradinaru et al., 2016).
Abuses against children in sports have sporadically been brought to public attention
through press investigations following reports from parents. Former athletes,
especially female gymnasts, have also made public statements denouncing thecruelty with which they were treated by coaches in childhood, referring to physical,
verbal and emotional abuse, including starvation.
References to sexual abuse rarely appear in these press inquiries and are limited toreference of inappropriate touches from (male) coaches on girls during training. The
abuse of boys (any form) has not been raised or disclosed.
At the time of preparing this project (2018), in Romania there were no ongoingprograms to raise awareness of abuse in sport. Only in October 2019, Terre deshomme Romania launched the project, ‘Keeping children safe in sports’ (funded by
the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Program of the European Union). But it also
avoids the subject of sexual abuse, focusing on other forms of abuse.
In these conditions, the development of control and prevention policies must be
based on scientific data on the prevalence of abuse in sports, in all its forms ofmanifestation and in all categories of athletes, which the present study proposes todo.

3.5 Spain
Spain has a population of approximately 47 million people. The Spanish High SportCouncil (El Consejo Superior de Deportes [CSD]) is the umbrella agency for Spanish
Sport. In the last report (2020) the CSD accounted 3.8 million memberships tofederations in over 74,459 sport clubs. Moreover, the last survey (2020) on sport
habits found that 60% of the Spanish population aged 15 years and older had played
sport in the last year, either regularly or occasionally.
Attention to interpersonal violence against children in sport is growing but still
remains a marginal topic in the sport world. In 2013, a case of sexual violenceagainst a female child gymnast in the national team at the Moscow 1980 Olympic
Games hit the national news. The head gymnastics coach and alleged perpetrator
had been a member of the CSD for more than 20 years and the gymnastics
programme depended on him. Due to the statute of limitations, the case was never22

taken to court. However, the police investigation stated that there were strong
indications that sexual abuse against child gymnasts had been happening for someyears. After this case, other Olympic and international athletes came forward andreported sexual abuse. For example, international coaches Torres Baena (Karate)and Miguel Millán (athletics) are currently serving prison sentences for sexuallyabusing child athletes.
Following the media coverage of these cases, a few clubs and sport entities within
the various Autonomous Communities (Catalonia, Madrid, Basque country, etc.) took
the initiative to raise awareness and provide training on prevention and detection ofsexual violence, providing workshops, talks and webinars on the topic for theircoaches and members. However, this is not a unified or systematic approach andofficial training resources and ‘safeguarding’ structures are required at both nationaland Autonomous Communities level.
In June 2021, after years of pressure from Spanish and international NGOs, a law
related to the comprehensive protection of children and adolescents from violence
was approved (Organic Law 8/2021, of 4 June). This law represents a crucial turning
point in Spain; for the first time sport is explicitly referenced as one of the areas inwhich violence can occur.
The law imposes three specific obligations with reference to child protection in sport:(i) requisite training of professionals working in sport with children; (ii) obliging the
clubs and sport entities to appoint a child protection delegate; and (iii) implementing
protocols with an emphasis on addressing discrimination, insults, and humiliation in
sport contexts. Therefore, the new law goes beyond sexual violence and establishes
new norms for the sport sector and professionals working with children. It includes allcoaches and adults who work with children in sport contexts. The law also requires
each area, including sport and leisure, to draw up national prevention strategies.

3.6 UKThe United Kingdom, comprising England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales,
has a population of approximately 67 million people. Each country has its own
umbrella agency for sport, primarily responsible for promoting sports participationand distributing central funding, but sport governing bodies are independent andautonomous organisations.
Following the research and advocacy of Celia Brackenridge from the late 1990s, theUK was one of the first countries to establish measures to protect children from IV insport. In 2001, Sport England and a children’s charity1 established the Child
Protection in Sport Unit (CPSU). The CPSU helps sports organisations build capacity
for safeguarding children in sport and now operates in England, Wales and Northern
Ireland. An equivalent organisation runs in Scotland2.
In 2003, the CPSU established professional standards for sports organisations(CPSU, 2018, 2019). These include measures to protect children from IV in sport.
Funding for national governing bodies of sport (NGBs) is tied to implementation of

1 The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC).
2 This is called Children 1st.

23

these standards. NGBs also have designated national safeguarding leads with links
to statutory agencies, safeguarding training is required for sports staff, and criminal
history checks are mandatory for staff with regular contact with children in sport(Lang & Papaefstathiou, 2021).
Despite these developments, little is known about the prevalence of IV againstchildren in sport in the UK. One study explored self-reported harms experienced by anon-representative sample of university students when they were children inorganised sport (Alexander et al., 2011). Of the valid 6,124 responses that relate toforms of IV, 75% reported experiencing emotional harm, 29% sexual harassment,
24% physical harm, and 3% sexual harm. Males reported experiencing more
emotional, physical, and sexual harm than females, and females more sexual
harassment.
The study did not gather data on neglect in sport. The focus on subjective ‘harm’, thedefinitions used and the lack of representative sample means the study does notconstitute a prevalence study. As such, there is a significant gap in our knowledge
about the prevalence of IV against children in sport. This was highlighted in an
independent report to government that recommended ‘government to ensure that a
prevalence study, looking at the rates of abuse of children and adults in sport, isconducted to gather up to date information’ (Grey-Thompson, 2017: 18).

24

4. Methodology
CASES surveyed six European countries using samples of individuals (n=1472)
aged 18-30 years who had participated in sport during childhood. Samples werecomparable by gender and age group (18-24, 25-30) of respondents. The survey
focused particularly on the sport context but also collected comparative data forinterpersonal violence and abuse outside of sport.
The necessary sample size is based on a power calculation to allow comparison
between the respective genders and age groups (n=368) with an expected lowest
prevalence of interpersonal violence in sport (contact sexual violence) of 4%(Confidence Interval 95%, alpha= .05: Z= 1.96, d= .02).

4.1 Research Questions
The study was guided by the central research question:
What is the prevalence of interpersonal violence against children active inorganised sport, inside and outside sport?

Subsidiary questions were:•••

What are the characteristics of ‘victims’?
What are the characteristics of ‘perpetrators’?
What are the further characteristics of the experience in relation to:o Frequency
o Durationo Locationo Organisational settingo Disclosure

4.2 Definitions
4.2.1 Interpersonal violence
Violence is a complex and contested concept. Traditional or minimalist conceptions
focus on physical force, but are criticized for failing to take ‘account of the wider
contexts of social relationships in which violence occurs, non-physical harms(especially psychological), and the possibility of violent outcomes that were notconsciously intended’ (Ray, 2011: 24).
The forms in which violence manifests itself can be visible or insidious, sometimes
difficult to perceive or recognise as such, both by the individual who manifests the
behaviour and by the one who is subjected to it. The impact of violent behaviours onchildren, in particular, does not only depend on the form that behaviour takes, but on
a series of contextual and personal factors that can aggravate the consequences.

25

As there are many behaviours with severe consequences, which are ‘non-violent’,even 'affectionate' (e.g. caressing, kissing, hugging), yet represent an abuse of trust
rather than actions normally construed as violent, the terms abuse, exploitation,
and/or maltreatment are widely used to refer to harm to children. Thus, Article 19 of
the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) states that the childshould be protected from:[..] all forms of physical or mental violence, injury and abuse, neglect ornegligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse whilein the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the careof the child.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) describes the nature of violent acts as: 1)
physical; 2) sexual; 3) psychological; and 4) deprivation or neglect3 (Krug et al.,
2002: 6). Sethi et al. (2018: 106) provide definitions for each type or category ofviolence. The WHO also separate violence into three distinct categories: selfdirected, interpersonal, and collective violence. For the purposes of this study, selfdirected and collective violence were excluded.
Interpersonal violence (IV) refers to: a) family and intimate partner violence and b)
community violence. Family and intimate partner violence refers to violence ‘usually,
though not exclusively, taking place in the home’. Community violence refers to‘violence between individuals who are unrelated, and who may or may not knoweach other, generally taking place outside the home’ (Krug et al., 2002: 6).
Furthermore, ‘children can experience violence at the hands of adults, and violence
may also occur among children’ (UN, 2011). This is a significant area of global healthpolicy. Thus, the WHO published a ‘global plan of action’ in 2016 ‘to strengthen therole of the health system within a national multisectoral response to addressinterpersonal violence, in particular against women and girls, and against children’(WHO, 2016). The CASES team chose to use this concept of interpersonal violenceagainst children (IVAC) and to include all four types or categories of violence(physical, sexual, psychological, neglect).

4.2.2 Categories of interpersonal violence
Based on the framework of the WHO and incorporating views from research andother appropriate organisations, the four types or categories of interpersonal
violence were defined as follows:
Physical violence results in actual or potential physical harm from an interaction orlack of an interaction, which is reasonably within the control of a parent or person ina position of responsibility, power or trust, e.g. a coach or physiotherapist in the fieldof sport (WHO, 1999: 16). Yet, physical violence may also occur in peer-to-peer
interaction, e.g. between peer athletes in a sport-setting. Physical violence may
involve hitting, kicking, shaking, pushing, poisoning, burning, biting, scalding,drowning or any other method of causing physical harm (CPSU, 2021). In the field ofsport, it is important to be sensitive to those physical behaviours that would be

3 Conceptualisations of child abuse make the same distinctions (e.g. the British governments statutory

guidance in ‘safeguarding’ includes four main categories of abuse: physical, sexual, emotional abuse,and neglect, as well as exploitation and extremism (HM Government, 2018, p.106)).

26

considered violent or abusive in other contexts, but are a normal ‘part of the game’ insport, such as hitting in combat sport or collisions in many team/ball games. Thus,
forms of physical harm that belong to the usual execution of a sport are not includedin this study. However, physical violence does include situations where coaches orthe entourage of an athlete encourage the use of drugs or harmful substances (e.g.
to enhance performance, delay puberty, etc.) or instances where athletes are
required to participate when injured or where sanctions used by coaches involve
inflicting pain (CPSU, 2021).
Psychological violence (sometimes also called ‘emotional violence’) includes acts
towards a child that cause, or have a high probability of causing, harm to the child’s
psychological health or mental, spiritual or social development (WHO, 1999). Those
acts include belittling, humiliating, shouting, scapegoating, rejecting, isolating andthreatening behaviours, as well as being ignored, or denied attention and support(Mountjoy et al., 2016). Furthermore, in the field of sport the pressure to perform tounrealistically high expectations falls within the scope of psychological violence(CPSU, 2021).
Sexual violence or abuse – according to the WHO (1999) is the involvement of achild in sexual activity that he or she does not fully comprehend, is unable to giveinformed consent to, or for which the child is not developmentally prepared andcannot give consent, or that violate the laws or social taboos of society. Sexual
violence encompasses situations where a child is forced or persuaded to take part insexual activities where consent is not or cannot be given. This may or may not
involve physical contact, and it can also occur ‘online’. In sport, it often involves
manipulation and entrapment of the athlete (CPSU, 2021; IOC, 2007).
The term ‘sexual violence’ is usually used as an umbrella term that includes acontinuum of different behaviours, ranging from sexual harassment without bodycontact, to transgressive behaviours, to sexual violence with body contact. The
common characteristics of these different forms are that the behaviours are basedon sexuality and the abuse of power and have intimidating or even traumatising
effects on victims (Brackenridge, 2001; Ohlert et al, 2018, Rulofs et al., 2019). In thisstudy sexual violence is differentiated into contact-sexual violence, including sexual
behaviours with body-contact, and non-contact sexual violence, including verbal,
visual or digital/online forms of sexual harassment.
Neglect is the failure to meet a child’s basic physical or psychological needs. Sincea child has unique demands to sustain growth and development, behaviours thatneglect these demands can have a long-lasting impact on a child's health ordevelopment. In sport, examples of neglect could include a coach or supervisor
failing to ensure children are safe while participating in their sport, e.g. exposing
children to unsafe conditions or extreme weather without ensuring adequate
equipment, clothing or hydration, exposing children to unnecessary risk of injury byignoring safe practice guidelines or failing to ensure the use of safety equipment.
(CPSU, 2021; Mountjoy et al., 2016).

4.2.3 Inclusive Approach
Based on these definitions, our conceptualisation of IVAC was, therefore, broad anddeliberately intended to include supposedly milder forms of violence, or acts that
may not be considered as violent, such as inappropriate staring or leering, being
27

made to feel inferior, or not providing positive feedback (‘praise’). This decision may
be criticised, however, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child
states:All forms of violence against children, however light, are unacceptable. […]Frequency, severity of harm and intent to harm are not prerequisites for thedefinitions of violence. State parties may refer to such factors in intervention
strategies in order to allow proportional responses in the best interests of thechild, but definitions must in no way erode the child’s absolute right to humandignity and physical and psychological integrity by describing some forms ofviolence as legally and/or socially acceptable. (UNCRC, 2011: 8)
Similarly, the UK government’s statutory guidance for ‘safeguarding’ children
provides the following definition of ‘child abuse’:A form of maltreatment of a child. Somebody may abuse or neglect a child byinflicting harm, or by failing to act to prevent harm. Harm can include illtreatment that is not physical as well as the impact of witnessing ill treatmentof others. (HM Government, 2018: 106)
Therefore, the CASES questionnaire purposely aimed to be as inclusive as possible.
We would add that all items in the questionnaire represent experiences and/or
behaviours that can have a deleterious and long-term impact on those who aresubjected to them.
When studying interpersonal violence (IV) in sport, it is also necessary to distinguishbehaviours or actions that are a normal and legitimate part of the game or activity,
even though they may normally be described as ‘violent’, from that which oversteps
the ethical mark (Brackenridge, 2010); in other words, deliberate or non-accidental
IV. Accordingly, ‘violence’ occurring within the bounds of prescribed constitutive rules(for example, punching in boxing and collisions in sports such as rugby or football) is
not considered in this study.

4.2.4 Defining ‘Sport’
CASES focused on organised sport which we define as every recreational orcompetitive sporting activity that is: voluntary, takes place within the context of a clubor organisation outside the school curriculum, and involves an element of training or
instruction by an adult, including sport camps and organised extracurricular sporting
activities at school.
We exclude physical education (PE), as governance for PE lessons falls within the
education sector rather than the sport sector. We also exclude informal or casualsport activities (e.g. self-organised running and swimming) and other informal
physical activities (e.g. dog-walking, gardening).
Whilst the focus of the study is the sport context, the underpinning principle is theprevention of child abuse (interpersonal violence against children) in all its forms andcontexts. Therefore, to establish a meaningful picture of the interpersonal violence
experienced by those who participate in sport (before age 18), it was important tosurvey respondents’ experiences both inside and outside sport.

28

4.3 Respondents
This study consists of a convenience sample, provided by the international research
agency Ipsos MORI. An online questionnaire (described below) was completed by
1,472 adults (aged 18-30) in each partner country (Austria, Belgium, Germany,
Romania, Spain, United Kingdom). Only respondents that took part in organised
sport before the age of 18 were included in the survey. Interlocking quotas were set
on age (18-24 years old and 25-30 years old) and gender to reach an equal split
across the four categories.
Following a specific request from the Walloon government, two samples were taken
in Belgium: one with Dutch-speaking citizens living in Flanders, and one with French
speaking citizens living in Brussels or Wallonia.
Two responses (one from a participant in the UK and one from Romania) had to bedeleted (see 3.5.6 for further information). A final sample of 10,302 individuals wasachieved.

4.4 The Instrument
The research instrument was an online questionnaire structured around the fourmain categories of abuse or interpersonal violence: physical, psychological (oremotional), sexual, and neglect. Sexual violence was further divided into two
categories: contact sexual violence (CSV) and non-contact sexual violence (NCSV).

4.4.1 Development of the questionnaire
The CASES study is based on an online questionnaire for adults (aged 18 to 30) thatenquires about their experiences in sport prior to age 18. The questionnaire wasspecifically developed by the CASES-consortium to address the research question(above). It is informed by previous research that has documented and describedabuse and interpersonal violence in sport since the 1990s. Previous similar research,such as Alexander et al. (2011), Vertommen et al. (2017; 2020) and Ohlert et al.
(2018) were particularly influential in the questionnaire design.

4.4.2 Operationalising criteria for ‘violent’ experiences
A significant challenge in the development of the questionnaire was to operationalise
the broad definition of interpersonal violence into concrete items exploring the
respondents’ experiences inside and outside sport. The instrument had to capture
the range of experiences indicated by the United Nation’s Convention on the Rightsof the Child (UNCRC) within a concise survey. Therefore, the impulse to gather all
the data considered important, valuable and meaningful had to be tempered against
the need to produce a questionnaire that respondents would be able and willing tocomplete in a reasonable timeframe. In this regard, the design had to take particular
account of individuals who may have many experiences to report and ensure that thequestionnaire was not overly onerous for such respondents.
It was also crucial that the questionnaire was suitably contextualised to the sport
sector so that respondents were sensitised to IVAC inside sport. At the same time –since a comparison to experiences outside sport was also part of the study design –29

the questionnaire items also had to be compatible with general, non-sport-specificfields.
Guided by the principles of the UNCRC and aligned with international standards onchild welfare and children’s rights, the survey items do not necessitate a ‘perpetrator’
who intentionally harms another individual. Rather the questionnaire is designed tocapture not only overtly violent or abusive acts against children, but also behaviour
and experiences that may be normalised or tolerated, inside sport (and other)
contexts, and which, as a consequence, may well not be considered as violent or
harmful by the individual or ‘victim’ at the time of experience.
Therefore, the concept of (self-perceived) violence was not the primary criteria for
respondents to consider. Instead, the survey sensitised respondents to include
experiences they felt to be negative, hurtful, or harmful. Therefore, the introduction to
the main items in the questionnaire stated:
The next questions ask about your childhood and experiences that are
generally considered to be negative or harmful for young people.
The preamble to each battery of questions then sensitized the respondent to theparticular area of IVAC using the following statements:
Physical:Sometimes people can do things that hurt us physically when we are children.
Psychological:
Sometimes, people can do or say things which hurt our feelings or have anegative or harmful emotional impact when we are children.
Neglect:
Sometimes the people that are responsible for caring for us when we arechildren do not do look after us in the way that they should.
Sexual:Sometimes people can do or say negative or harmful things of a sexual naturewhen we are children. These may have been unwanted at the time, or you
may now feel that they were inappropriate.

4.4.3 Central items/questions
35 items were developed in order to gather data on four types of IV or ‘abuse’. These
were grouped into five categories and each category included a number ofbehaviours or experiences for respondents to consider: neglect (6 items),
psychological violence (9 items), physical violence (5 items), non-contact sexual
violence (NCSV) (9 items), and contact sexual violence (CSV) (6 items).
Table 1 provides an abridged version of the 35 items. Future publications will include
the full questionnaire.

30

TABLE 1: OVERVIEW OF ITEMS DESCRIBING EXPERIENCES OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCEAGAINST CHILDREN

Category ofinterpersonal
violence
Neglect

Psychologicalviolence

Physical violence

Non-contact sexual
violence (NCSV)

Contact sexual
violence (CSV)Core content of item

1. Inadequate support
2. Inadequate medical care
3. Inadequate supervision
4. Inappropriate equipment
5. Absence from school
6. Unsafe conditions
7. Humiliations
8. Criticism about appearance
9. Ignored or excluded
10. Not praised for efforts (praise withheld)
11. Verbal aggression/abuse
12. Unrealistic expectations
13. Initiation games/rites (non-physical)
14. Verbal threats about performance
15. Expulsion from team/club/group
16. Exercise as a punishment
17. Initiation games/rites
18. Taking supplements
19. Playing while injured or at harmful intensity
20. Physical assault
21. Obscene or sexual comments
22. Inappropriate staring or leering
23. Asked/forced to view sexual images/messages
24. Asked/forced to produce or share sexual images or messages
25. Sexual images of respondent produced and/or shared
26. Undressing for others
27. ‘Flashed’ at (in person)
28. ‘Flashed’ at (online)
29. Sexual games/initiation rites (non-contact)
30. Kissing
31. Sexual touching
32. Genital contact
33. Oral sex
34. Sexual penetration
35. Sexual games/initiation rites (contact)

4.4.4 Dynamics and constellations of IVACS
For respondents who indicated one or more experiences of interpersonal violence insport before age 18, additional questions were presented. Where a respondent
indicated more than one item within a category of IVAC, they were asked to provide
details for the ‘most serious experience’. To operationalise this, respondents wereasked to select ‘the one experience that had the most impact on you, either
physically or psychologically’ (see Table 2).

31

TABLE 2: OVERVIEW OF ITEMS RELATING TO MOST SERIOUS EXPERIENCE OF IVAC
Respondent (‘victim’)
1. Age experience began (onset)
2. Age experience stopped (cessation)
Experience (or incident)

3. Number of incidents (frequency)
4. Total period of experience/victimisation (duration)
5. Organisational type of sport setting (context)
6. Specific sport location

Perpetrator(s)7. Number of individuals involved
8. Gender of individuals involved
9. Role/Position of individuals involved

Reporting & Support

10. Disclosure and support sought by respondent

4.5 Procedure
4.5.1 Testing
The questionnaire was first developed in English and pre-tested by members of the
UK research team with 30 male and female adult (over 18) native English speakers
in the target age range and from a range of socio-economic backgrounds. This took
the form of a ‘say what you think’ type trial, to allow the research team to check
respondents’ understandings of the questions. This prompted some amendments toimprove clarity, mainly adjusting to lay language.
Following pre-testing, EHU published a tender for the online implementation of thequestionnaire across the partner countries. Ipsos MORI (IM), a global leader inmarket research, were subsequently recruited to implement the questionnaire.
The move to an online format required further development of the questionnaire. In
particular, IM advised and assisted in adapting the survey to be ‘device agnostic’;
given the age of target audience (18-30 years), it was important that the survey wascompatible with completion on a mobile phone. Therefore, some adjustments toquestion length and format were made.
The online version of the questionnaire was built by IM and hosted on their platform.
A pilot of the UK survey was then completed with 300 respondents from Ipsos’ IIS
panel4. The aim of the pilot was to test questionnaire routing, survey length, to checkfor any questions with a high number of abandoned interviews or non-substantive
answers (‘don’t know’ or ‘prefer not to say’), and to review use of the open text
response item.
Pilot fieldwork took place between 28 August – 1 September 2020. The pilot-testing
revealed some inconsistencies in routing and phrasing of questions, leading tofurther refinements.

4 Ipsos Interactive Services Limited, or IIS, is a company with its registered address in the England at

3 Thomas More Square, London, E1W 1YW. IIS is part of the Ipsos worldwide group of companies.

32

4.5.2 Translation
The survey questionnaire, survey invitation, and privacy notice were translated by
the respective national consortium partners of the project into German (Austria andGermany), Dutch (Belgium), Romanian and Spanish. The translation into French(Belgium) was provided by an external agency. A separate list of sports wasprovided for all countries in the relevant language by the consortium partners andproofread by the IM Translation Team. Once translated, these were checked by thepartners across the survey countries and a small number of changes weresuggested and incorporated before the translations were finalised.
In order to ensure a translation that was as close as possible to the English original,
the principle of back-translation was undertaken, i.e. the questionnaire was backtranslated into English by an independent third person who was a native speaker ofEnglish and also knew the local language of the respective country. Any deviations
were discussed and adjusted by the whole team.

4.5.3 Sampling
Sampling and data collection were performed by IM. Members of the IM Panel are
regularly invited to participate in various online surveys and receive small incentives(e.g., coupons for online shopping) in return for their participation. IM was
responsible for compiling a well-balanced composition of the sample, so that it is asrepresentative of the populations as well as possible.
IM contacted panel members aged 18-30, who were screened on the basis ofwhether they had participated in organised sport when under 18. During thefieldwork, interlocking quotas were set by gender and age-group (18-24 and 25-30
years-old), with the aim of reaching an equal distribution across the four categories.
Although this form of quota sampling facilitated a sample as representative as
possible in terms of age and gender, there are also disadvantages of such asampling. Online panels, by definition, only reach those who have internet access,whilst recruitment into a panel in the first place is self-selective and likely to bebiased towards particular demographic groups. Nevertheless, the sample is one of
the largest – if not the largest – ever studied internationally on interpersonal violencein sport.
Panel members were invited to participate in the study by means of a briefing letter
which contained information on the content of the questionnaire, a link to a webpage
with further information on the methodology of the study, a directory of counselling
services, and a hyperlink to the CASES questionnaire.

4.5.4 Ethical considerations
Approval for the research protocol was obtained from all University partners’ ethics
committees in all participating countries.
Given the sensitive nature of the survey, considerable thought was given to theordering of the questions while also ensuring respondents were clear on the different
categories of experience. The final questionnaire asked first about physical violence,
followed by psychological violence, neglect, and finally sexual violence.
Respondents could only proceed after completing a consent page. This made it clearthat the questionnaire covered ‘sensitive matters such as abuse’, that participation33

was voluntary, responses were confidential, and that the survey could be paused or
terminated at any point. Respondents were reminded of this throughout thequestionnaire. For those questions considered to be of a particularly sensitive
nature, an answer option ‘prefer not to say’ was offered.
A list of support services, bespoke for each partner country, was provided through alink on every screen and at the end of the survey.
Initially, a series of follow-up questions (relating to: frequency, duration, perpetrator
details, location) were designed for each specific item of violence experienced.
However, after review of the scripted questionnaire, it became clear that this would
result in a very long interview for those who had experienced multiple forms ofviolence. This increased the potential risk of harm to respondents, therefore, in the
final version, follow-up questions were only asked about the most serious
experience, for each category of IVAC. This modification reduced the potential timeburden significantly.

4.5.5 Fieldwork
The mainstage fieldwork involved a staggered approach to launching the survey ineach country, as shown in Table 3. Fieldwork took place between 22 October and 14
December 2020, until the net response of 1472 was achieved in all countries.
TABLE 3: FIELDWORK DATES BY COUNTRY
Country
Austria
Belgium (Flanders)Belgium (Brussels-Wallonia)
Germany
Romania
Spain
UK

34

Fieldwork startdate
11/11/2020

Fieldwork end
date
17/11/2020

Duration(days)
7

03/11/2020

14/12/2020

41

03/11/2020

22/11/2020

20

10/11/2020

14/11/2020

5

29/10/2020

4/11/20207

30/10/2020

2/11/20204

22/10/2020

31/10/2020

10

4.5.5.1 ACHIEVED QUOTASInterlocking quotas were set on age and gender to reach an equal split across thefour categories (18-24 years/25-30 years and male/female), as shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4: ACHIEVED QUOTAS FOR MALES AND FEMALES IN BOTH AGE GROUPSCountry

Male

FemaleIn another way /Total

Prefer not to say
18-24

25-30

Total

18-24

25-30

Total

18-24

25-30

Total

Austria

368

357

725

368

368

736

7

4

11

1,472

Brussels-Wallonia

368

352

720

368

368

736

9

7

16

1,472

Flanders

368

356

724

368

368

736

6

4

10

1,472

Germany

368

354

722

368

368

736

11

3

14

1,472

Romania

365

366

731

368

368

736

2

3

5

1,472

Spain

361

366

727

368

368

736

6

3

9

1,472

UK

363

367

730

368

368

736

4

2

6

1,472

3.5.5.2 AVERAGE COMPLETION TIME

The survey allowed respondents to come back to the survey after leaving it open in
their browser or exiting the website. Therefore, the overall mean length of interview
is skewed by those who left the survey open for a long period of time before finishingthe questions. Excluding those who took more than 45 minutes to complete thesurvey5, the average length of interview was 13.2 minutes across all countries. Table
5 shows the average length of interview for each country.
TABLE 5: QUESTIONNAIRE COMPLETION TIMECountry

Mean length of interview (minutes)

Austria

13.6

Belgium (Brussels-Wallonia)

12.6

Belgium (Flanders)

12.3

Germany

15.0

Romania

14.5

Spain

13.3

UK

12.7

Regarding the device used to access the survey, 35% of participants used a laptop
or PC, 63% a smartphone, and 2% tablet.

5 95 per cent of interviews took less than 45 minutes.

35

4.5.6 Data processing and quality control
The production of survey data is an automated process based on the online survey
script, which was designed, constructed and tested in advance of fieldwork. The final
data files for each country were checked by IM and the research team to ensure
routing for each question had worked correctly and that respondents answered all
relevant questions as intended. The data files were also ‘cleaned’ so that all datafiles
were fully labelled, structured logically and included all relevant sample variables.
The final item in the questionnaire stated:
If there is anything else you would like to say about this topic or if you’d like toprovide any feedback on this questionnaire, please add your thoughts on thenext screen.
All responses were reviewed by the team. Two respondents (one from UK and one
from Romania) stated their responses were incorrect and were subsequently deleted
from the sample.

4.5.7 Statistical procedure
The primary aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of interpersonal
violence experienced by children who participate in sport. For the purpose of this firstreport descriptive statistics and chi-square tests are used to describe and detect
possible differences in prevalence between countries, male and female respondents,
or between different levels of sport participation in the study population. Further
possible differentiations, e.g. by age group, sexual orientation, ethnic background or(dis)ability of respondents are not explored in the scope of this first report. Moredetailed publications on these subgroups of the sample will follow.
In the statistical procedures, precision is defined here as the width of the 95%
confidence interval (CI). In order to make the report readable for a general audience,detailed statistical parameters (e.g. chi square-results or p-values) are not reported.
Whenever we use the term ‘significant’ in the report, this means that the difference
described, e.g. between countries, genders, or the level of sport participation, is also
a significant finding on the basis of statistical calculation procedures.
Due to the sample size, statistical procedures reveal many differences between sub
samples, which appear to be significant in a statistical sense, however, we focus on
the differences that we consider relevant based on the statistics and the content andaim of our project. The statistical software package SPSS version 27 was used toanalyse the data.

36

5. Results
5.1 Introduction and Sample
This chapter presents the main findings of our survey of 10,302 respondents in six
European countries: Austria, Belgium, Germany, Romania, Spain and the UK. Seven
questionnaires were distributed, including two in Belgium: one in Belgium Flanders
and one in Belgium Brussels-Wallonia.
The main demographic profile of the sample was as follows:
•
•
•
•

•

Age: Respondents were aged 18-30, with an average age of 24.4 years.
Sex: 49.3% (5,077) of respondents were male and 50% (5,125) were female.
0.3% stated they identified themselves ‘in another way’ and 0.4% stated theywould ‘prefer not to say’.
Sexual orientation: 82.3% (8,477) identified as heterosexual, 7% (721) as
bisexual, 2.5% (254) as gay, 1.7% (172) as lesbian, 1.7% as other (176), and4.9% (502) preferred not to say.
Disability: 6% (615) of respondents stated they had a disability. Furthermore,
6.7% of respondents stated they had participated only in sports for people withdisabilities, 14% had participated in both non-disabled and disabled sports, andjust under 80% had not participated in any sports for disabled people.
Ethnicity: 11.3% of respondents belonged to a minority ethnic group.

5.2 Characteristics of Sport Participation
Respondents were asked to indicate up to five sports they had participated in before
the age of 18. Those who had not participated in any sport were thanked and exitedfrom the questionnaire.
Only 3% of respondents declined to name the sport they had participated in. Nearly
two-thirds (61%) identified a second sport, 37% identified a third sport, 19% a fourth,and 11% a fifth.
Dance was the most popular sport for women (13%), followed by: swimming (10%),
football (8%) and volleyball (7%). For men, football was the most common sport(28%), followed by basketball (10%), tennis (8%) and swimming (6%) (see Table 6).

37

TABLE 6: MOST POPULAR SPORTS BY GENDER
Male

Female%n%n

Football

27.5

3,209

Dance

12.8

1,453

Basketball

9.7

1,130

Swimming

9.9

1,130

Tennis7.5

870

Football

7.9

901

Swimming

6702

Volleyball

7.1

810

Table Tennis

3.6

415

Tennis

6.7

762

Athletics

3.3

385

Basketball

6.3

722

Volleyball

3.2

370

Gymnastics

5.4

611

Exercise & Fitness

3.2

368

Handball

4.3

487

Handball3

356

Athletics

3.9

443

Cycling

2.6

299

Badminton

3.7

426

When asked to rate their overall experience in youth sports, the majority (85%)
stated it had been either ‘very good’ (43%) or ‘good’ (42%), with less than 5% stating
either ‘poor’ (3%) or ‘very poor’ (0.6%) (see Figure 2). Around one-in-ten
respondents (12%) stated their experience had been ‘neutral’.
FIGURE 2: OVERALL EXPERIENCE IN SPORT (%)

1

3
12

43

42

Very Poor

Poor

NeutralGood

Very Good

Respondents reported a range of organisations for their participation in sport. Most
had played in a sports club (70%), with 30% playing in extra-curricular school sports,
18% at a fitness centre, 20% in a private setting, 16% in a sports camp, 9% in a nonsports club and 6% in a training centre for elite athletes.
38Respondents were also asked for their highest level of participation in youth sports.
As shown in Figure 3, nearly three-quarters participated either at the recreational(40%) or local club level (34%). A quarter had participated at higher competitive
levels, including regional (16%), national (7%) and international (2%).
FIGURE 3: HIGHEST LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION (%)

2

7

16
40

34
International

National

Regional

Club/Local

Recreational

There were, however, large differences by gender in terms of the highest level ofparticipation in youth sports, with men being more likely to have participated at ahigher level. For example, 19% of men had participated at a regional level compared
to 13% of women. Similarly, 9% of men had participated at a national level compared
to 7% of women. Exactly half of all female respondents’ highest level of participation
was recreational, compared to just 30% of men.

5.3 Prevalence of Interpersonal Violence Against
ChildrenThis section presents the findings on the prevalence of interpersonal violenceagainst children (IVAC), both inside and outside sport. To reiterate, all participants
were aged 18-30 and had participated in organised sport before the age of 18. An
experience of IVAC always indicates an experience that happened before the age of18.
The category ‘inside sport’ assesses any experience of IVAC that happened in thecontext of sport, independent of possible additional experiences outside the sport
context. The category ‘outside sport’ assesses any experience of IVAC that
happened outside sport, in a non-sport context, even if a respondent also
experienced IVAC within the sport context. As a consequence, it is important to keep
in mind that these categories overlap, thus respondents may appear in bothcategories if they experienced IVAC in both contexts.

39

5.3.1 Overall Interpersonal Violence Against Children (IVAC)
Overall (average across all categories and countries) the CASES survey found:

75% of respondents reported at least one experience of IVAC inside sport
82% of respondents reported at least one experience of IVAC outside sport

Inside sport, cross-national comparisons show that, overall, IVAC prevalence varies
from 70% in Austria to 80% in Belgium Brussels-Wallonia.
Outside sport, the prevalence of IVAC varies from 77% in the UK to 86% in Belgium
Brussels-Wallonia (see Figure 4).
FIGURE 4: PREVALENCE OF IVAC INSIDE & OUTSIDE SPORT BY COUNTRY (%)

40

The most common experience of IVAC inside sport was psychological violence(65%), followed by physical violence (44%), neglect (37%), non-contact sexual
violence (35%), and contact sexual violence (20%)

Psychological violence, non-contact sexual violence (NCSV), and contact sexual
violence (CSV) were all experienced at a higher frequency outside sport.
Inside sport, neglect was marginally more common and physical violence wassignificantly6 more common.
FIGURE 5: PREVALENCE OF CATEGORIES OF IVAC INSIDE & OUTSIDE SPORT (%)

6 Reminder: use of the term ‘significant’ is based on statistical significance tests.

41

Inside sport, 79% of men and 71% of women reported at least one experience ofany type of IVAC.

Across all countries, with the exception of Austria, men were significantly more
likely to experience IVAC than women.

The range for women varied from 65% in Belgium Flanders to 75% in BrusselsWallonia and Germany. For men, experience of IVAC varied from 72% in Austria to
84% in Brussels-Wallonia (see Figure 6).
FIGURE 6: PREVALENCE OF IVAC INSIDE SPORT BY GENDER & COUNTRY (%)

Furthermore, across the whole sample, males were significantly more likely to haveexperienced each type of IVAC inside sport (see Figure 6a).

42

FIGURE 6A: PREVALENCE OF IVAC INSIDE SPORT BY GENDER AND CATEGORY (%)

Those competing at higher levels of sport were more likely to have an experience of
IVAC inside sport. For example, 84% of those who had competed internationally
had experienced IVAC, compared to 68% who had competed only at a recreational
level (see Figure 7).
FIGURE 7: PREVALENCE OF IVAC INSIDE SPORT BY HIGHEST LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION (%)

43

SUMMARY44•

The prevalence of IVAC inside sport is between 70% to 80%
depending on the country.

•

The prevalence of IVAC outside sport is between 77% to 84%
depending on the country.

•

The differences between the countries are statistically significant but
not particularly high.

•The proportion of respondents who had experienced IVAC outside
sport is higher in all countries (by 3% to 9%) than the proportion of
those who experienced IVAC inside sport.

•

Psychological violence is the most common form of IVAC, both within
and outside sport.

•

CSV is the least common form of IVAC inside sport; neglect is theleast common outside sport.

•

The prevalence of IVAC inside sport is significantly higher for males
than females.

•

The prevalence of IVAC inside sport is lowest at the recreational level
and highest at the international level.

5.3.2 Neglect
Inside sport, 37% of respondents had experienced at least one form of neglect
before age 18, compared to 34% outside sport (see Figure 5).
Cross-national comparisons show the prevalence of neglect inside sport varies
from 32% in Austria and Belgium (Flanders) to 42% in Germany and Romania.
Outside sport, the experience of neglect ranges from 26% in Austria to 40% in
Belgium Brussels Wallonia (see Figure 8).
The most common experience of neglect inside sport was a lack of appropriate
equipment/kit to safely perform (16%) followed by forced to participate in unsafe
conditions (16%) and lack of adequate support for well-being (15%) (see Table 7).
FIGURE 8: PREVALENCE OF NEGLECT BY COUNTRY (%)

45

Inside sport, 44% of men and 30% of women reported at least one experience ofneglect before age 18. Overall, and for each country, men were significantly more
likely to experience neglect inside sport than women.
The prevalence of neglect for women ranged from 26% in Austria and Belgium
Flanders to 36% in Germany. For men, the prevalence varied from 37% in Austria to
50% in Romania (see Figure 9).
FIGURE 9: PREVALENCE OF NEGLECT INSIDE SPORT BY GENDER & COUNTRY (%)

46

As with the overall prevalence of IVAC, the prevalence of neglect increased amongst
those who competed at higher levels of youth sport. For example, 30% of those whocompeted recreationally had experienced neglect, compared to 54% of thosecompeting internationally (see Figure 10).
FIGURE 10: PREVALENCE OF NEGLECT INSIDE SPORT BY HIGHEST LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION (%)

5.3.3.1 SUMMARY

47•

Across the total sample, approximately one-third of respondents had
experienced neglect inside sport before age 18.

•

The prevalence rate for neglect inside sport is between 32% to 42%
depending on the country.

•

The difference between the countries is statistically significant but notparticularly high.

•Neglect is experienced inside sport more frequently than outside
sport.

•The prevalence of neglect inside sport is significantly higher for males
than females.

•

The prevalence of neglect inside sport is highest at the international
level and lowest at the recreational level.

5.3.4 Psychological Violence
Inside sport, 65% of respondents reported at least one experience of psychologicalviolence before age 18. This compared to 72% who experienced psychologicalviolence outside sport (see Figure 5).
Cross-national comparisons showed that the prevalence of psychological violence
inside sport ranged from 59% in Belgium-Flanders to 71% in Germany. Outside
sport, the rate of psychological violence varied from 66% in Belgium Flanders to
76% in Belgium Brussels Wallonia (see Figure 11).
The most common experience of psychological violence inside sport was not being
praised for efforts or achievements (35%) followed by humiliations (34%) (see Table
7).
FIGURE 11: PREVALENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE BY COUNTRY (%)

48

Inside sport, 68% of men and 61% of women reported at least one experience of
psychological violence before age 18. With the exception of Austria, men weresignificantly more likely to experience psychological violence compared to women.
Across the countries, the rate of psychological violence for women varied from 54%
in Flanders (Belgium) to 68% in Germany. For men, the range was from 63% in
Belgium Flanders to 73% in Germany (see Figure 12).
FIGURE 12: PREVALENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE INSIDE SPORT BY GENDER & COUNTRY(%)

49

In relation to participation level, there is a difference between recreational level andother levels, but no difference between the four levels of competitive sport. As shownin Figure 13, those who competed recreationally were the least likely to haveexperienced psychological violence (59%), whilst regional competitors were the most
likely (72%).
FIGURE 13: EXPERIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE INSIDE SPORT BY HIGHEST LEVEL OF
PARTICIPATION (%)

50

SUMMARY51•

Across the total sample, approximately two-thirds of respondents had
experienced psychological violence inside sport before age 18.

•

The prevalence rate for psychological violence inside sport is between
59% to 71%, depending on the country.

•

The difference between the individual countries is statistically significant
but not particularly high.

•Psychological violence is experienced by children more frequently
outside sport than inside sport.

•

With the exception of Austria, the prevalence of psychological violence
inside sport is significantly higher for males than females.

•

The prevalence of psychological violence inside sport is lowest at therecreational level compared to the other competitive levels.

5.3.5 Physical Violence
Inside sport, 44% of respondents reported at least one experience of physicalviolence before age 18. This compared to 37% of respondents outside sport (seeFigure 5).
Cross-national comparisons showed the prevalence of physical violence inside
sport varies from 32% in Austria to 52% in Belgium Brussels-Wallonia. Outside
sport, the prevalence range was between 28% in Austria to 47% in Belgium
Brussels-Wallonia (see Figure 14).
The most common experience of physical violence inside sport was Instructed orforced to play while injured or at a harmful intensity (18%) followed by physicalassaults (punched, slapped, grabbed/pushed, or otherwise) (15%) (see Table 7).
FIGURE 14: PREVALENCE OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE BY COUNTRY (%)

52

Inside sport, 52% of men and 36% of women reported at least one experience ofphysical violence before age 18. Men were significantly more likely to experience
physical violence inside sport than women in each country.
Cross-national comparisons show that the prevalence of physical violence against
women ranged from 28% in Austria to 44% in Belgium Brussels-Wallonia. For men,the physical violence rate varied from 36% in Austria to 61% in Belgium Flanders(see Figure 15).
FIGURE 15: PREVALENCE OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE INSIDE SPORT BY GENDER & COUNTRY (%)

53

The prevalence of physical violence at the recreational level of sport is lower than
within competitive sport. Thus, 35% of respondents participating at a recreational
level had experienced physical violence compared to 57% of those who had
competed at an international level (see Figure 16).
FIGURE 16: PREVALENCE OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE INSIDE SPORT BY HIGHEST LEVEL OF
PARTICIPATION (%)

SUMMARY

54•

Across the total sample, 44% of respondents had experienced physicalviolence inside sport before age 18.

•

The prevalence rate for physical violence inside sport is between 32% to
52% depending on the country.

•

The prevalence of physical violence inside sport varied significantly
between countries; the prevalence in Austria was 20% lower than in
Belgium Brussels-Wallonia.

•

Physical violence is experienced more frequently by children inside sport
than outside sport.

•

The prevalence of physical violence inside sport is significantly higher formales than females.

•

The prevalence of physical violence as a child inside sport is lowest at therecreational level and highest at the international level.

5.3.6 Non-Contact Sexual Violence (NCSV)
Inside sport, 35% of respondents reported at least one experience of NCSV before
age 18. This compared to 52% outside sport (see Figure 5).
As shown in Figure 17, across the countries, the prevalence of NCSV inside sport
was between 30% in the UK and 41% in Belgium Brussels-Wallonia. Outside sport,
the range was from 46% in the UK to 60% in Belgium Brussels-Wallonia.
The most common experience of NCSV inside sport was obscene or sexualcomments (19%) followed by inappropriate staring or leering (18%) (see Table 7).
FIGURE 17: PREVALENCE OF NON-CONTACT SEXUAL VIOLENCE (NCSV) BY COUNTRY (%)

55

Inside sport, 38% of men and 32% of women reported at least one experience of
NCSV before age 18. This difference was statistically significant in Belgium, Spainand the UK.
Across the countries, the rate of NCSV inside sport for females ranged from 22% in
the UK to 40% in Germany. For males, the prevalence rate varied from 31% inAustria to 47% in Belgium Brussels-Wallonia. (see Figure 18).
FIGURE 18: PREVALENCE OF NON-CONTACT SEXUAL VIOLENCE (NCSV) INSIDE SPORT BY
GENDER & COUNTRY (%)

56

Higher prevalence rates of NCSV were associated with higher levels of sports
participation, although as Figure 19 shows this is not a uniform increase.
FIGURE 19: PREVALENCE OF NON-CONTACT SEXUAL VIOLENCE (NCSV) INSIDE SPORT BY
HIGHEST LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION (%)

SUMMARY

57•

Across the total sample, one-third of respondents’ report experiencing
NCSV inside sport before age 18.

•

The prevalence rate for NCSV violence inside sport is between 30% to
41% depending on the country.

•

The differences between countries are statistically significant, but notparticularly high.

•In all countries, NCSV is experienced more frequently outside sport thaninside sport.

•

The prevalence of NCSV inside sport is significantly higher for males thanfemales in the UK and Belgium, with a smaller difference in Spain and nodifference in Romania. In Austria and Germany, the experience of NCSV
inside sport is marginally more frequent for females than males.

•

The prevalence of NCSV as a child inside sport is lowest at therecreational level and highest at the international level.

5.3.7 Contact Sexual Violence (CSV)
Inside sport, 20% of respondents reported at least one experience of contact sexual
violence (CSV) before age 18. This compared to 41% outside sport (see Figure 5).
Cross-national comparisons show that the prevalence of CSV inside sport ranged
from 16% in Austria to 26% in Germany. Outside sport, experience of CSV varied
from 37% in Romania, Spain and the UK to 48% in Belgium Brussels-Wallonia (seeFigure 20).
The most common experience of CSV inside sport was kissing (11%) followed bysexual touching (8%) and genital contact (8%) (see Table 7).
FIGURE 20: PREVALENCE OF CONTACT SEXUAL VIOLENCE (CSV) BY COUNTRY (%)

58

Inside sport, 26% of men and 14% of women reported at least one experience of
CSV before age 18. Men were significantly more likely to have experienced CSV inyouth sports in each country.
Across the countries, the prevalence of CSV for females ranged from 8% in the UK
to 19% in Germany. For males, CSV varied from 20% in Austria to 34% in Belgium
Brussels-Wallonia (see Figure 21).
FIGURE 21: PREVALENCE OF CONTACT SEXUAL VIOLENCE (CSV) INSIDE SPORT BY GENDER &COUNTRY (%)

59

Similar to NCSV, the prevalence of CSV inside sport was lowest in recreational
sport, with some increase at the more competitive levels. Again, differences were
marginal and not uniform. As shown in Figure 22, for those competing recreationally,
17% had experienced CSV inside sport; compared to 26% amongst those competinginternationally.
FIGURE 22: PREVALENCE OF CONTACT SEXUAL VIOLENCE (CSV) INSIDE SPORT BY HIGHEST
LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION (%)

5.3.7.1 SUMMARY60•

Across the total sample, one-fifth of respondent’s reported at least one
experience of CSV inside sport before age 18.

•

The prevalence rate for CSV violence inside sport is between 16% to 26%
depending on the country.

•

The differences between countries are statistically significant, but notparticularly high.

•In all countries, the experience of CSV before age 18 is significantly more
frequent outside sport than inside sport.

•

The prevalence of CSV inside sport is significantly higher for males thanfemales.

•

The prevalence of CSV as a child inside sport is lowest at the recreational
level and highest at the international level.

5.3.8 Prevalence of all CASES items
Table 7 presents the total responses to each main item of the CASES questionnaire.
The five categories of IVAC are shaded and ranked according to their prevalence
inside sport. For comparison, the ranking of each item outside sport is also shown in
the final column.
TABLE 7: ITEMS BY CATEGORY, RANKED BY PREVALENCE INSIDE & OUTSIDE SPORT
IVAC
Psy
Psy
Psy
Psy
Psy
Psy
NCSV
Psy
Psy
Phys
NCSV
Neg
Neg
Phys
Neg
Neg
Psy
Neg
Neg
CSV
Phys
Psy
NCSV
Phys
NCSV
NCSV
NCSV
CSV
CSV
CSV
NCSV
CSV
CSV
NCSV
NCSV

Experience/Behaviour (abridged)
not praised for my efforts or achievements
humiliated or made to feel inferior or small
ignored or excluded
criticised about appearance, including weight, body shape
asked/forced to do exercise as a form of punishment
screamed at, threatened, or otherwise verbally abused
subjected to obscene or sexual comments
asked/forced to perform at unrealistically high standards
shouted at or threatened because of performance
asked/forced to participate while injured or sick or at an
intensity or frequency that was potentially harmful
subjected to inappropriate staring or leering
not provided with the appropriate equipment/kit
forced to participate in unsafe conditions
punched, slapped or otherwise physically assaulted
not provided with adequate support for my basic well-being
placed at risk of harm due to poor supervision
expelled from my team/club/group, or threatened with thisabsent from school to participate in other activities
did not receive appropriate medical care when needed
asked/forced to kiss someone
substances to manage body weight, enhance performance
asked/forced to participate in initiation ceremonies or otherrituals intended to humiliate, degrade or belittle'flashed' at / someone 'exposed' themselves in person
participated in ceremonies/rituals involving physical harm'flashed' at / someone 'exposed' themselves online
participated in initiations or rituals including degrading or
harmful activities of a sexual nature, without physical contact
produce/share sexual images, videos or text messages
caressed or otherwise touched sexually
genital contact with someone (including masturbation)
actual or attempted vaginal/anal sex (object or person)
asked/forced to view sexual images, videos or messages
asked/forced to participate in initiation ceremonies or otherrituals of a sexual nature that involved physical contact
engaged in (gave or received) oral sex
asked/forced to undress or perform sexual acts on myself forthe pleasure of someone else
sexual images of me were produced/shared by someone else

Rank N (%)
inside sport
outside sport
4. 3790 (37%)
1. 3576 (35%)*
2. 3490 (34%)
2. 4310 (42%)
3. 3058 (30%)
3. 4156 (40%)
4. 3041 (30%)
1. 4618 (45%)
5. 2916 (28%)
19. 1594 (16%)
6. 2150 (21%)
5. 3229 (31%)
7. 1958 (19%)
6. 3165 (31%)
8. 1946 (19%)
14. 1959 (19%)
9. 1924 (19%)
18. 1645 (16%)
10. 1875 (18%)
22. 1459 (14%)
11. 1836 (18%)
12. 1657 (16%)
13. 1629 (16%)
14. 1560 (15%)
15. 1550 (15%)
16. 1431 (14%)
17. 1365 (13%)
18. 1245 (12%)
19. 1160 (11%)
20. 1091 (11%)
21. 1045 (10%)
22. 1043 (10%)

7. 3098 (30%)
21. 1465 (14%)
23. 1347 (13%)
12. 1971 (19%)
17. 1684 (16%)
20. 1548 (15%)
24. 1319 (13%)
29. 1217 (12%)
25. 1314 (13%)
8. 2385 (23%)
32. 1071 (10%)
28. 1264 (12%)

23. 1037 (10%)
24. 923 (9%)
25. 883 (9%)
26. 825 (8%)

15. 1951 (19%)
30. 1131 (11%)
10. 2220 (22%)
33. 995 (10%)

27. 794 (8%)
28. 792 (8%)
29. 792 (8%)
30. 788 (8%)
31. 766 (7%)
32. 744 (7%)

27. 1286 (13%)
13. 1963 (19%)
9. 2225 (22%)
11. 2034 (20%)
26. 1318 (13%)
35. 744 (7%)

33. 721 (7%)
34. 675 (7%)

16. 1921 (19%)
31. 1111 (11%)

35. 654 (6%)

34. 985 (10%)*bold denotes highest/most prevalent in category

61

Table 7 illustrates the finding that the most common form of IVAC experienced inside
sport is psychological violence and the least common is sexual violence.
The comparison between ‘inside sport’ and ‘outside sport’ warrants further analysis
and this will be the subject of future publications. There are some apparent
similarities, for example, the first four most prevalent items inside sport are the same
(but in different order) as those outside sport.
There are also some clear differences. For example, a number of sexual violence
items differ substantively depending on whether they were experienced inside oroutside sport, generally indicating the higher rate of prevalence for sexual violenceoutside sport. For example, actual or attempted sexual intercourse (vaginal or anal)
was reported by 8% of respondents in relation to a sports setting compared to 20%
of respondents in relation to a non-sport setting.

62

5.4 Characteristics of interpersonal violence againstchildren: ‘most serious experience’The study also gathered additional data on the characteristics of IVAC in sport byasking further, follow-up questions when a respondent reported an experience of
IVAC. Many respondents identified more than one IVAC experience, therefore,
rather than asking follow-up questions for each experience or item – which could beonerous for those who report multiple experiences – respondents were asked to
identify (‘think of’) the experience they rated as the ‘most serious’, in the sense of
having the most impact on them. Thus, the data below are based on responses toquestions regarding the most serious experience across the ten areas presented
above in Table 2.

5.4.1 Age, frequency and duration of experience
In relation to the age of respondents when this (most serious) experience or incident(inside sport) began and ended, the questionnaire offered four age categories: 0-6,
7-13, 14-15, and 16-17.
For psychological violence (43%) and physical violence (42%), the experience mostcommonly began between 7-13 years of age. However, for neglect (38%), NCSV(40%), and CSV (35%) the experience most frequently began between 14-15 years
old (see Figure 23).
FIGURE 23: AGE OF ONSET OF IVAC (%)

63

Across all categories, the majority were 16-17 years old when the experience
stopped (30-33%). However, 7% of respondents reported the experience was still
occurring at the time of survey (see Figure 24).
FIGURE 24: AGE OF CESSATION OF IVAC (%)

64

In relation to frequency of experience, most respondents indicated 2-5 times forneglect (41%), psychological violence (42%) and physical violence (48%).
Frequency was higher for sexual violence: the most common response was morethan five times (40% for NCSV; 37% for CSV). 41% of those experiencing
psychological violence also reported a frequency of more than five times (see Fig.
25).
FIGURE 25: FREQUENCY OF IVAC EXPERIENCE (%)

65

In relation to duration of experience (see Figure 26), across all categories, except
psychological violence, the most common response was 1 day (19% to 20%).
However, for psychological violence, 20% of respondents indicated a period of over
2 years. In all categories, between 49% and 58% of respondents indicated theexperience had lasted at least one month. In all categories, more than 30% of
respondents reported the experience lasted at least 6 months (more than 40% forpsychological violence).
FIGURE 26: DURATION OF IVAC EXPERIENCE (%)

Significant sub-group differences concerning the duration of IVAC were foundindicating that female athletes tend to experience IVAC in all five categories over alonger period of time compared to male athletes (see Table 3.1 in Appendix 3).
Further, for psychological violence, physical, violence, and NCSV, a higher level of
performance (national and international) was related to longer durations of IV
experience. This was especially the case at the international level for psychologicalviolence and NCSV (see Table 3.2 in Appendix 3).

66

5.4.2 Characteristics of ‘perpetrators’
5.4.2.1 TERMINOLOGY
In relation to their most serious experience, respondents were asked to state how
many people were responsible, their gender(s), and the role/position they held.
These findings are presented in Figures 27-29.
Before presenting the data on the perpetration of abuse, it is important to qualify ouruse of the term ‘perpetrator’. Respondents were asked several questions about theperson or people responsible for the experience they considered to be most severe.
The terms ‘perpetrator’ or ‘offender’ were deliberately avoided as they are often
associated with deliberately harmful and/or criminal acts. However, as noted above,‘intent to harm [is] not [a] prerequisite for the definition of violence’ (UNCRC, 2011: 8)
and it was important to avoid giving any impression that the survey was limited tocriminality as defined in law. Therefore, the initial invitation stated:
The survey collects information about negative, potentially harmful, actions or
behaviours that you may have experienced within an organised sports setting
Furthermore, children also experience harm by or from other children. This may
include deliberate acts, but it may also be normalised behaviour that is encouraged
or tacitly endorsed by adults (e.g. an adult ignoring children using sexist, racist or
homophobic language). The survey also cannot capture causes or motives for IVAC
and it would be erroneous to make assumptions in this regard. In thesecircumstances, labelling children as perpetrators of interpersonal violence may betechnically correct, but conceptually limited.
Therefore, in describing our data, whilst we adopt the term ‘perpetrator’ in reference
to those persons identified by our respondents as being responsible for the negative
experiences they had, we do so in a qualified fashion to acknowledge its limited andproblematic application.

67

5.4.2.2 NUMBER OF PERPETRATOR(S)The majority of respondents (30% to 38%) indicated a single perpetrator in all fivecategories, followed by two people or three to five people for all categories, except
NCSV, for which more than five people was the second most frequent response at
27% (see Figure 27).
FIGURE 27: NUMBER OF PERPETRATOR(S) (%)

68

5.4.2.3 GENDER OF PERPETRATOR(S)
Across all categories, males were most often identified as the perpetrator(s) (44% to57%) (see Figure 28). Females were indicated less often (19% to 30%).
The highest volume of female perpetrators was in CSV (30%). The largest
difference, per type, in the gender of perpetrators was found in NCSV (54% male,
19% female). A substantial proportion of respondents (21% to 31% depending on thetype) stated the perpetrators were both male and female.
FIGURE 28: GENDER OF PERPETRATOR(S) (%)

When looking at gender of respondents and gender of perpetrators, significant subgroup differences can be seen (see Table 3.3. in Appendix 3). For neglect (60%),
psychological (66%), and physical violence (67%), most male respondents reported
a male perpetrator, while female respondents were relatively evenly distributed
among the three options concerning the gender of the perpetrators.
Perpetrators of sexual violence (NCSV and CSV), are most often male, regardless ofthe victim’s gender. However, just over one-fifth (22%) of male respondents reported
NCSV by a female perpetrator, increasing to over one-third (34%) for CSV. Just over
one-fifth (23%) of female respondents indicated CSV by another female.

69

5.4.2.4 ROLE AND POSITION OF PERPETRATOR(S)For psychological violence (48%), NCSV (40%) and CSV (34%), most respondents
indicated teammates or peers (under 18 years) as perpetrators (see Figure 29).
Neglect (38%) and physical violence (37%) was most often perpetrated by coaches,trainers or instructors (18+).
FIGURE 29: ROLE/POSITION OF PERPETRATOR(S) (%)

Despite the differences across the categories, teammates and peers as well ascoaches, trainers and instructors were the two most common perpetrator groups forneglect, psychological and physical violence.
For NCSV and CSV, besides peers that were known, the second most mentioned
perpetrator group are peers (under 18 years) that were not known by the athletes.
One-fifth of the respondents indicated coaches as perpetrators of NCSV and CSV.

70

5.4.3 Context and location of violence experience
5.4.3.1 ORGANISATIONAL CONTEXT
Respondents were asked to identify, from multiple options, the sports context inwhich this most severe experience happened (see Figure 30). In all five violence
categories, the sport club (26% to 46%) is the most often indicated context. Other
contexts frequently referred to are special training centres for elite athletes (31% forneglect, 19% for CSV) and organised extra-curricular school sport (20% forpsychological violence, 15% for physical violence, 15% for NCSV).
FIGURE 30: SPORTS CONTEXT OF EXPERIENCE (%)

71

5.4.3.2 LOCATION
Respondents were also asked to indicate the type of specific location where theyexperienced IVAC (see Figure 31). The majority identified In or around the sports
facility for each of the five violence categories (26% to 52%), followed by achanging/locker room (14% to 22%) and a treatment room (9% to 19%).
Furthermore, the results indicate that there is greater variation in the location ofsexual violence experiences compared to the other forms of violence. Privatehouses, cars and rooms in hotels, camps or boarding schools are mentioned more
often as places of sexual violence than for the other forms of violence.
FIGURE 31: LOCATION OF EXPERIENCE (%)

72

5.4.4 Support/Disclosure
Respondents were also asked whether they had told (disclosed) anyone about theirexperience of violence (see Figures 32 and 33). The majority of respondents, acrossall five categories, reported that they had not disclosed or sought support.
FIGURE 32: DISCLOSURE & SUPPORT – NON-SEXUAL VIOLENCE (%)

FIGURE 33: DISCLOSURE & SUPPORT – SEXUAL VIOLENCE (%)

Experiences of psychological violence were the least disclosed and CSV was themost often disclosed. If support was sought, family members or relatives were thefirst point of contact for experiences of neglect (20%), psychological violence (20%),and physical violence (19%). For experiences related to NCSV (16%) and CSV(17%), most respondents who did tell somebody, disclosed to friends or peers. Thus,
families, friends and the individual’s close social environment were the mostfrequently chosen points of disclosure and support.
73

Official institutions, such as health services (4% to 10%) or victim-support
organisations (3%-8%) as well as school/education settings (7% to 12%), wereindicated by some participants in all categories, but were, in comparison to the closesocial entourage, contacted less. The least contacted institutions or professions were
the police, therapists and lawyers.
Furthermore, experiencing IVAC inside sport rarely leads to a report to someone insport (e.g. a coach). Only a small proportion of participants (4% to 6%) asked forsupport within the sport context. This may indicate that respondents either did notknow where to report in the context of sport or did not feel encouraged to seek
support in the organisations of sport.

74

6. Summary and Discussion of Key
Findings
In the following sections we summarise and discuss some of the key findings fromthe CASES study. In this preliminary report it is not possible to explore all the data
generated by this project; further publications will follow, allowing for moredifferentiated and detailed observations of the findings.

6.1 Prevalence of interpersonal violence againstchildren (IVAC) inside sport and outside sport
The most striking finding from this study is the extent to which those who participate
in sport as children experience violations and abuses, either whilst participating insport, or otherwise. 75% of respondents in this survey experienced some form ofinterpersonal violence inside sport, at least once, before the age of 18. Outside
sport, the figure rises to 82%.
The consistency of these findings across national contexts also demonstrates thewidespread nature of IVAC across sporting contexts in various European countries.
Overall, the proportion of respondents who had experienced IVAC outside sport ismarginally higher in all countries (by 3% to 9%) than the proportion of those who
experienced IVAC inside sport (see Figure 4).

6.2 Scope of CASES survey
It is important to contextualise these high prevalence rates. Importantly, our survey
was deliberately inclusive, in line with international definitions of violence and abuseagainst children. That is, respondents were asked about various forms of violations
and harassments, including those that are often considered ‘inconsequential’,‘normal’, ‘tolerable’, ‘mild’, ‘low-level’, etc. Thus, the most common IVAC experiences
reported, regardless of context, relate to psychological violence (see Table 7):
withholding praise, ignoring, humiliating, shouting at, or excluding children.
The impact of such experiences cannot be determined by this study and probably
many would not call these experiences ‘violence’ in the narrow sense of the word. It
is only clear from these data that a considerable proportion of respondents had been
affected by such forms of psychological violation, both outside and inside sport.
It should also be understood that the overall prevalence rates include respondents
who reported experiencing such actions/behaviour just once. However, when asked
about their most serious experience inside sport, approximately 40% of respondents
reporting IVAC reported a frequency of 2-5 times and 36% reported a frequency ofmore than five times (see Figure 25). Similarly, more than 80% of respondents said
their most serious experience lasted for more than 1 day (see Figure 26). Therefore,
in most instances the data refer to individuals who have been subjected to repeatedexperiences, by one or more persons, over a period of days, weeks, months or
years.

75

6.3 Categories of IVAC inside sport and outside sport
Separating violence (or abuse) into specific forms allows more detailed insight into
IVAC. However, it is important to note that one individual can experience multiple
forms of violence (for example, see Euser et al., 2010). Therefore, whilst it isanalytically useful, this separation can also be artificial. The issue of ‘overlap’ will be
explored in future publications. Below we briefly consider the overall findings foreach type of IVAC and offer some contextual discussion.

6.3.1 Psychological violence
More than 6 out of 10 respondents (65%) reported an experience of psychologicalviolence inside sport. This is lower than the findings of Alexander et al. (2011) andhigher than Vertommen et al. (2016). However, different sampling and othermethodological differences between studies make comparison very difficult.
It is important to note that these experiences or behaviours, which may causesignificant, long-term harm, also fall within the realm of widely accepted disciplinary
practices. Often, they are accepted as part of normal ‘child-rearing’ or childsocialization practices and it is evident that these were commonly experienced
outside of sport also.
There has been comparatively little attention to psychological violence within the
sport sector (Krahn, 2021; Stirling & Kerr, 2013). Yet it represents a key challenge
for child welfare in sport and athlete welfare more broadly. Within performanceoriented sport cultures, withholding praise, ignoring, humiliating, shouting at, or
excluding children, are frequently seen as ‘character-building’ and necessary
elements of preparing children to succeed, as well as the means for identifying andseparating out those who have the (apparent) requisite volume of ‘mental toughness’and ‘resilience’. It is little surprise, then, that high numbers of respondents statedthey had experienced such things at least once.
In a similar vein, using exercise to discipline children is a commonly used and widely
accepted coaching practice or has been in the very recent past. These abuses then,often form the accepted and inherited cultural fabric of sport – practices that require
no comment because they are ‘part of the game’. In such circumstances, raisingobjections to such practices can risk ostracization and vilification, as illustrated in theprevious VOICE Project in relation to sexual violence in sport (Rulofs et al., 2020).
Therefore, psychological violence towards children in sport often ‘hides within plainsight’ and the challenge of addressing it cannot be underestimated.

6.3.2 Physical violence
We found that more than 4 out of 10 children (44%) participating in organised sport
experience some form of physical violence beyond the usual or accidental physicalcontact or harm/injury that occurs as a normal feature of playing sports. It is
important to point out that this category includes experiences beyond direct physicalassault, such as being forced to train when injured, being instructed to takeperformance enhancing substances, and being forced to participate in ritualized
games and ceremonies that involved harmful physical activities.
A high tolerance for physical pain applies to many sports and some sports are violent
or aggressive in nature, such as combat-sports and team-sports such as rugby.
76Again, the emphasis on ‘winning’ (games, leagues, trophies, etc.) in sport and theexclusionary practices of ‘selection’ inherent to a performance culture, isaccompanied by the overt rewarding and celebrating of children who most rapidly
improve their performance in comparison to other children. In such a culture, awillingness to overload one’s body, to ‘play through’ injury, ignore pain, practice toexcess, and to perform and achieve beyond age-related standards is highly valued
by adults, and seen as displaying ‘the right spirit’ and ‘the will to win’ (Mayer, Kühnle
& Thiel, 2021). Thus, rather than being viewed as problematic or damaging, such
behaviours, or qualities, are more often seen as key indicators of ‘potential’.
Therefore, it is not especially surprising to find that nearly 1-in-5 respondents (18%)
had been ‘instructed or forced to perform while injured or sick or at an intensity or
frequency that was potentially harmful’.
Thus, sport environments seem to provide a context where physical violence(including physical assault, unhealthy body-management practices, and rituals
involving physical harm) occurs more often inside sport than outside sport (seeFigure 5). If sport is to deliver on its claims to contribute to safe and healthy
childhoods, the challenge to be both a physically demanding or challenging space forchildren, whilst also being a physically safe and positive space requires significant
attention.

6.3.3 Neglect
As Gilbert et al. (2009: 68) found ‘neglect is at least as damaging as physical orsexual abuse in the long-term, but has received the least scientific and publicattention’. Thus, there has been very little attention to child neglect inside sport.
Undoubtedly, sport constitutes a realm within which children’s safety is entrusted toorganisations that rely heavily on volunteers who may have experience in playing
sport, but often little or no experience of managing children’s safety effectively, forexample, through robust risk assessment procedures. Yet sport is often a physically‘risky’ endeavour, indeed, that is part of its distinct appeal for so many, includingchildren. However, resources are frequently scarce, thus the equipment, facilities
and expertise necessary for the safe provision of children’s sport, as well as ensuringchildren are properly looked after whilst in loco parentis (acting in place of a parent),
is often limited or absent.
In the CASES-study, approximately one third of respondents indicated experiencesof neglect inside sport and outside sport (37% and 34% respectively). This finding
presents a substantive challenge for sport where local provision is often stretched
but where children’s rights are no less important or applicable. Ultimately, the volume
of experiences in this category can be cautiously interpreted to mean that theprevention of neglect in sport should be carefully considered and given more
importance than has been the case so far.

6.3.4 Sexual violence
The least frequent experiences reported by respondents in this study are those of
sexual violence (both contact and non-contact forms). This result may seem to be incontrast to the attention given to sexual violence against children in recent years.
However, the results clearly show that one-in-five (20%) children who participate inorganised sport experience some form of contact sexual violence inside sport andover a third (35%) experience some form of non-contact sexual violence inside sport.
77

The most common experiences were being the subject of ‘obscene or sexualcomments’ (19%), ‘inappropriate staring or leering’ (18%), inappropriate, unwanted
or forced kissing (11%), and being ‘flashed’, both in-person (10%) and online (9%).
Acts commensurate with sexual assault and rape inside sport had a prevalence rate
of 7% to 8%.
Qualitative research with former athletes has previously illustrated the life-longpersonal impact of sexual violence in sport (e.g. Hartill, 2016; Rulofs et al., 2019).
Sexual violence and child sexual abuse remains a taboo subject in many cultures
and as such remains a form of violence around which there is a ‘dome of silence’(Kirby et al., 1999) and a topic that many are reluctant to discuss. Unsurprisingly,
many victims and survivors feel their experience is an isolated one and finddisclosure – privately or through official channels – very difficult. The findingspresented here demonstrate that sexual violence in sport is far from uncommon.
Whilst the call to prevent sex offenders and paedophiles from entering youth sport is
widely supported, sexual violence is often defined in very narrow terms. Certainly,
the focus of media attention is almost entirely confined to rape and severe sexualassault. Significantly, then, the CASES data illustrate clearly the large volume ofsexual activity within children’s sport that is either forced, unwanted or inappropriate.
These data illustrate the need for the sports community to understand ‘sexual
violence’, ‘sexual abuse’, ‘sexual exploitation’, and ‘sexual harassment’ in theirwidest sense, rather than confine their understanding and prevention of sexual harmto the most violent forms.
Therefore, these data confirm the need for efforts to prevent the sexual abuse ofchildren, inside and outside sport, to remain of utmost importance. Thus, theprotection of children from sexual violence must remain a high priority in sport aswell as in other areas of child and youth work.

6.4 Cross-national comparisons
A key finding is the similarity between national prevalence rates. Examining the rates
across national contexts through the individual categories of IVAC reveals a few
differences (see Table 8). These show a range of approximately 10 percentage
points for each category of IVAC, with the exception of physical violence, which has
a range of 20 percentage points.
TABLE 8: CROSS-NATIONAL COMPARISONS: PREVALENCE RANGE OF IVAC INSIDE SPORT
Category

Range and country

Psychological

59% in Belgium-Flanders to 71% in Germany

Neglect

32% in Austria to 42% in Germany

Physical

32% in Austria to 52% in Belgium Brussels-Wallonia

Non-contact sexual violence

30% in the UK and 41% in Belgium Brussels-Wallonia

Contact sexual violence

16% in Austria to 26% in Germany

The survey found the highest rates inside sport for psychological violence, neglect,and contact sexual violence in Germany; the highest rates for both physical violence
and non-contact sexual violence were in Wallonia-Brussels. The lowest prevalence78

rates for neglect, physical violence, and contact sexual violence were found inAustria; UK had the lowest rate for non-contact sexual violence; and BelgiumFlanders the lowest rate for psychological violence.
Whilst noting these differences, it is difficult to draw direct conclusions from this. The
CASES-consortium will explore this in further statistical procedures and future
publications. At this stage, it can be concluded that for almost all categories (except
physical violence) the range of difference between countries is small and thus thedifferences in prevalence rates of violence in sport between countries are minor, if
not negligible.
Without gathering data over longer periods of time, it is not possible to know if thesedifferences are reflective of long-standing, durable patterns. This illustrates the needfor longitudinal studies that can generate international trend analyses to map changeover time. The CASES questionnaire offers an instrument that would enable suchlongitudinal analyses in future.

6.5 Gender
6.5.1 Rates of victimization for boys and girls
The data shows that males report higher rates of IVAC inside sport than females,
across all five categories. This somewhat goes against prevailing thought where
public debate and discussions within the sport sector often focus (sometimes
implicitly) on the victimisation of female athletes to the exclusion of males. In keepingwith general studies of child abuse and child sexual abuse (e.g. Gilbert et al., 2009;
Pereda et al., 2009; Stoltenborgh et al., 2011), rates for females were found to behigher than males outside sport. However, a study of maltreatment in the UK also
found higher rates of victimization of boys (under 18) by ‘non-resident’ adults(Radford et al., 2011: 69-70).
The CASES findings contrast with a recent study of current and retired Canadianathletes (Kerr et al., 2019) that found a higher number of ‘harmful behaviours’
against females in psychological, physical, and sexual harm, and neglect. However,other research findings indicate that our result is not entirely unexpected.
Vertommen et al. (2016) found that boys experience more physical violence than
girls while playing sports and no gender differences in relation to psychologicalviolence and the most severe types of sexual violence. Bermon et al. (2021) found‘no difference between genders for verbal, physical, and sexual abuses’ within theelite athletics setting, but that ‘touching sexual abuses’ ‘represented 35% of all
sexual abuses in women and 57% in men.’ Similarly, Fasting et al. (2016: 24)
measured neglect, verbal harassment, bribery, physical abuse, gender harassment,
sexual harassment and sexual abuse in Zambian sport in a sample of 410 athletes.
They found ‘no statistically significant differences between female and male athleteswith respect to experiences of the different types of harassment and abuse.’
Therefore, the statistically significant difference found here, between male andfemale prevalence rates across all forms of IVAC inside sport, and across sevennational contexts, is a unique finding, but one that resonates with evidence fromother recent studies.

79

It is important to keep in mind that this survey is a cross-sectional study thatcollected experiences of violence retrospectively at a specific point in time in a
specific sample. Further detailed analysis and discussion will follow in future
publications, however, we offer some initial thoughts for consideration with respect tothe gender-differences in violence experiences in our sample.

6.5.2 Boys and Male-SportFirst, it may be that the higher rates of victimization for boys are explained by thehigher volume of ‘perpetrators’ within the male population generally (establishedacross many studies of child abuse) and the fact that sport remains a firmly sexsegregated (and male-dominated) field. Thus, males in sport, including those who
perpetrate violence, are far more likely to participate with other males than withfemales. Therefore, it may be that the high proportion of sex-segregation within sport
increases the risk to boys whilst decreasing the risk to girls.
The higher overall rates of male victimization may also be related to dominant formsof gender socialization as well as gender-based myths around violence and abuse.
That is, erroneous narratives about boys can operate against adults ‘seeing’ (andacting on) violence towards and between boys and/or being especially sensitized to
the vulnerability of girls. This may lead to lower thresholds of protection as well as
lower reporting and disclosure.
For example, physical violence clearly has a different relationship to masculinity andfemininity. Fighting amongst boys has generally been considered a rite of passage, if
not an essential element of masculinity, yet widely discouraged amongst girls. In
other words, physical violence is a highly valued element of (dominant versions of)masculinity, but anathema to successful or dominant femininity within heteropatriarchal cultures. Certainly, there is a great deal of research literature that has
detailed the hyper-masculinist culture that prevails within (male) sport (e.g. Messner& Sabo, 1990; Meuser, 2007; Hartill, 2014). Within these cultures, hierarchies areencouraged and violence between males (both on and off ‘the field’) is normalized
and valorised (as is ‘rape culture’ and sexual violence against women and girls; e.g.
Curry, 1991).
Therefore, despite formal codes and rules to the contrary, dominant forms of sport(often referred to as national sports) have produced clear expectations that boys
should both perpetrate violence, and accept it without complaint; their capacity forboth carries significant meaning for their social status and male identity. Suchspaces are breeding grounds for sexist and homophobic masculinity, but they arealso spaces in which boys are extremely vulnerable to interpersonal violence,
including sexual violence (Hartill, 2005).
Therefore, generally speaking, expectations about what is acceptable behaviour
between boys, and towards boys, differs markedly from that of girls and all-female(sport) spaces. If the capacity to accept physical pain is a key indicator that marksout ‘a (real) man’, then non-physical (or psychological) violence is an oxymoron
within male-sport. Thus, many forms of interpersonal violence within male-dominatedor all-male spaces, such as male-sport, are dismissed as harmless – ‘boys being
boys’, ‘just banter’; or considered positive – ‘character building’, ‘rites of passage’ –or simply as unavoidable, natural by-products of being male (‘testosterone-fuelled’).

80Similarly, in relation to sexual abuse, the ‘male perpetrator-female victim paradigm’
has been influential in shaping discourses around risk and victimization. Likewise,
male perpetrators are referred to as ‘paedophiles’, ‘deviants’, and ‘sex beasts’, farremoved from normal (heterosexual) men. Therefore, masculinist, heteronormative
spaces such as sport – persistently characterised as moral training grounds for the
young, policed by strong heterosexual men – are thought to pose little or no risk forboys. Yet as feminists have long pointed out, even sexual violence is about power
rather than sex. In such conditions, the preponderance of male ‘victims’ (and male
‘perpetrators’) is not especially surprising.
It should also be taken into account that, unlike other studies that survey athletes(see Kerr et al., 2019), the sample used here consists of people who participated inorganised sport in their childhood and adolescence, but who are not necessarily still
currently members of a sports club. It is also possible that our sample includes anumber of men who are now more critical of their experiences of violence in sportand less likely to accept it as a normal part of sport socialisation than in studies using
samples of athletes.
The survey found a significant difference between male and female respondents andwe have offered some observations on this above. However, the rates of IVAC for
females, whilst generally lower, is nevertheless also high. This factor is far more
important than any numerical differences within the sample. Whilst it seems
reasonable to highlight differences between male- and female-sport, there are also
many similarities. Thus, the fundamental ‘nature’ of competitive sport as a ‘zero-sum
game’ (Brackenridge, 2001) frequently organises children (regardless of gender) into
hierarchical units and designates their value according to their ability to deliver
performance-driven goals – above all according to their win-loss ratio. Suchenvironments are evident in abundance within national and international media
reports on ‘child abuse in sport’ scandals. Therefore, whilst acknowledging thisimportant finding on gender, our focus is on children and the nature of the spaces
provided for them.
6.5.2.1. DURATION
Finally, the data also indicates that females experience all categories of IVAC overlonger time periods (see Table 3.1 in Appendix 3). In the duration options ‘1-2 years’and ‘more than 2 years’, female rates were higher than males across all five IVAC
categories. The difference was especially pronounced for more than 2 years for
NCSV (12% difference) and psychological violence (10% difference).

6.5.3 ‘Perpetrators’
6.5.3.1 GENDER
Most reports (relating to respondents’ most serious experience inside sport) refer tomale ‘perpetrators’. However, on average across all categories, the perpetrator was
identified as exclusively male in half of all IVAC reports and exclusively female in justunder a quarter of reports (see Figure 28). This finding reinforces the generally
accepted view that ‘perpetrators’ of child abuse and neglect are most often male.
However, the substantial minority of female perpetration of IVAC inside sport should
serve as a warning against the general tendency to overly-masculinise violence81against children – in other words, to assume it is only males who are responsible forsuch behaviour.
This is particularly the case for sexual violence where previous studies haveidentified males as perpetrators in the overwhelming majority of cases. Therefore, it
is noteworthy that in these data, the gender difference for perpetrators is closest incontact sexual violence where 30% of all reports identified a female ‘perpetrator(s)’exclusively, compared to 44% of reports identifying a male ‘perpetrator(s)’exclusively.
6.5.3.2 ROLE AND STATUS
In relation to the role (or relationship) of the perpetrators, our survey design allows
us to disaggregate role by category of IVAC (using the ‘most serious experience’only). Figure 29 shows that neglect is most often perpetrated by adult coaches,
whereas psychological violence, non-contact sexual violence, and contact sexual
violence is most often perpetrated by known peer athletes. Physical violence is mostoften perpetrated by coaches / instructors as well as known peer athletes.
Focusing on whether the perpetrator was known to the victim, it is clear thatperpetrators of all forms of IVAC inside sport were known to the respondent in the
overwhelming majority of cases, even though the incident may also have involved
individuals who were not known to the victim (yet were still part of the sport
environment).

6.6 Prevalence of IVAC and level of sport participation
A significant finding of the CASES-study is the correlation between the level of sportparticipation and the experience of IVAC in sport. Interpersonal violence happens at
all levels of sport, from recreational sport, through club sport to regional, national andinternational level. However, the results suggest that the likelihood of experiencing
IVAC inside sport increases as the level of performance moves beyond therecreational level to more competitive sport.
Across all forms of violence, prevalence is lowest for those respondents indicating
participation in recreational sport and highest for those indicating international level
performance (e.g. representing their country at international events in official
competitions). Overall, the prevalence for any form of IVAC is 68% at therecreational level and 84% at the international level.
Furthermore, for psychological violence, physical violence, and NCSV, a higher levelof performance (national and international) was also related to longer durations of
IVAC.
The data also reveals that the prevalence of experiencing IVAC inside sport does notincrease continuously with the level of sport participation. Instead there is a sharp
increase from the recreational level over the club level to already relatively highprevalence rates at the regional level, while the further increase from the regional
level to national and international level is minor (e.g. for physical violence), marginal(e.g. for NCSV) or absent (e.g. for psychological violence). This implies that thedifference between recreational sport and competitive sport in general (starting at
regional level) might be relevant to the experience of IVAC inside sport.

82

Competitive sport with its specific social structures, for example the close
relationships of dependency between athlete and coach, the pressure to produce
success and ‘win’, and the disciplining body-related regimes, might foster conditions
for the execution of violence against children in sport. Yet participating in sport at acompetitive level goes hand-in-hand with spending much more time in sport, often
within a single sport, in contrast to recreational sport. Thus, the higher prevalence
rates in competitive sport may also be an effect of a longer exposure time in sports
and/or specialisation within one sport.

6.7 Organisational context of IVAC in sport
In order to prevent interpersonal violence in sport effectively, it is important to know
in which organisations of sport it takes place. All in all, the CASES-results show that
violence was experienced by respondents in diverse organisational contexts of sport,
e.g. in clubs, camps, elite training centres, health centres, extra-curricular school
sport, etc. It can also occur in private settings, when athletes visit each other inprivate homes or coaches invite athletes to their private houses.
Overall in all five categories of IVAC, the sport club is by far the most often indicatedcontext of violence experience in sport (see Figure 30). For example: of all
respondents who indicated the experience of psychological violence, 46% identified
the sport club, 20% extra-curricular school sport, 10% a sport camp and 10% a
private setting as the organisational context where the experience took place.
Against the background of the great relevance of sports clubs for the system oforganised sport in many European countries, this finding is not surprising. However,it also points to the need for further efforts to prevent violence, especially within the
structural base of organised sport – in the clubs. If organised sport for children andyouth is to become a safer space in future, there is a strong need to support sport
clubs in installing prevention measures. As sports clubs are mainly based onvoluntary work, sports and youth politics are challenged to find ways and means for
sports clubs to be better positioned for the prevention of violence against children.
However, it goes without saying that the other organisational contexts are also called
upon to further expand their efforts to prevent violence. With regard to contact sexual
violence, for example, the CASES study shows that as many as 19% of respondents
with experiences of contact sexual violence in sport stated they had experienced it in
the context of elite training centres. This finding points to the need to also increasesafeguarding measures in the field of competitive sport for children and in thosespecific institutions of competitive sport, e.g. centres of excellence and Olympic
training centres.

6.8 Disclosure
The majority of respondents experiencing IVAC did not disclose the experience. Thisis a consistent finding across all categories of IVAC (see Figure 32 & 33). Similarly,
for all categories, if a disclosure was made it was highly likely that this would be to a
family member or friend, outside of the sport context. Overall, disclosures towards anofficial or professional position were rare (mostly below 10%) and from these
professional positions those working in education or health were the most likely toreceive a disclosure. Following these professions, those working in sport were the83next most likely to receive a disclosure (with the exception of CSV where victimsupport workers were marginally more likely to receive a disclosure).
Across all categories of IVAC, the respondents in this study were more likely todisclose to a sport worker than to someone in a religious organisation, the police, acounsellor, or a lawyer. With the exception of contact sexual violence, sport workers
were also more likely to receive a disclosure than a victim-support worker. Thisemphasizes the importance of ensuring the sports workforce, and the organisations
within which they are situated, is appropriately equipped to handle such disclosures.

6.9 Overall experience of sport
It is important to highlight that despite the high prevalence rates inside sport, nearly
85% of respondents rated their general experience of sport as ‘good’ (43%) or ‘very
good’ (42%). This is a rather counter-intuitive finding to which we make a number ofpreliminary observations.
First, it is likely that for at least some respondents, their broader experience of sport
was not significantly impacted by experiences of interpersonal violence. This should
not obscure the fact that experiences of interpersonal violence (even supposedly‘mild’ forms) can lead to ‘drop-out’, loss of enjoyment, and have serious
psychological or health consequences. However, such experiences would notnecessarily detract from respondents’ general positive feelings about sport that areoften established early in childhood.
Furthermore, even extreme experiences of interpersonal violence within childhood
sport often do not equate to the totality of an individual’s experience of sport. Sportmay be the site of interpersonal violence, exploitation and abuse and a source of
personal achievement, self-efficacy, and empowerment. Therefore, reducing such
positive, even self-defining, experiences to the experience of victimisation may well
be deeply unpalatable for the individual.
This complexity is impossible to resolve in a survey of this type, but it does not seem
illogical to expect that even those experiencing significant harm within sport may
want to recognise and focus on the positive aspects of their participation.
Finally, this level of approval no doubt illustrates the strong contribution that the sport
sector makes to individual lives and the extent to which sport participation is valued
within our societies. However, it may also indicate both the widespread normalizationof violent and harassing behaviours (towards children) and the weak recognition andimplementation of children’s rights in many cultures and institutional settings of sport.

84

7. Limitations
7.1 Temporal and cultural context of the survey
sampleIt is important to recognize that the survey data relates to a specific timeframe.
Respondents had to be between 18 and 30 years old during the fieldwork dates. The
survey opened on 22/10/2020 (UK) and closed 14/12/2020 (Belgium: Flanders) (seeTable 3). All respondents were born between October 1989 and December 2002 andthe experiences recorded by the survey all occurred when respondents were under
18 years of age – a 30-year period between 1990-2020.
This timeframe represents a significant period inside sport in relation to child abusein sport, or as we define it here, interpersonal violence against children (IVAC) insport. The earliest media coverage of sexual abuse in sport can be traced to the mid1990s in several countries, however, organised strategic efforts to prevent abuse in
sport were only appearing at the turn of the millennium at the earliest (e.g. UK and
the Netherlands). For most countries (including most countries in this study), such
efforts did not occur until much later and for most countries in the CASES study,
these efforts are either in the early stages of implementation (Austria, Belgium,
Germany,) or only very recently initiated (Romania, Spain). Therefore, the timeframeof the study has been a period of substantial change inside sport. This emphasizes
the need for longitudinal studies that can map trends over time.

7.2 Methodology and sample
The task of establishing prevalence of child abuse and neglect is a significant
challenge in its own right. This task is complicated further by the specific contextual
focus on sport, and complicated again by the comparative, multi-national approachtaken. A key challenge was to incorporate the vast array of behaviours andexperiences that fall within the frame of harm against children, and to do so withappropriate clarity and specificity so that the survey was accessible and userfriendly. Thus, the team were required to draw up clear and concise questions, firstin English, in a way that translated and transferred well across other national
contexts.
Thus, in constructing a questionnaire that would provide sufficient granularity, whilst
not being overly onerous on respondents, especially those who had experienced
multiple forms of harm, it was not possible to specifically refer to all harmful
behaviours or experiences that fall within the scope of interpersonal violence againstchildren. For example, self-harm, financial exploitation, and trafficking of children
were not specifically referred to.
In order to ensure that the questionnaire was ‘device agnostic’ – in other words, it
could be completed on an array of internet-connected devices including mobile
phones – questions had to be pared down to the minimum number of characters
prior to the final programming. Therefore, several compromises had to be made by
the research team to produce both a comprehensive and viable instrument.

85

Surveying a sensitive issue like violence against children requires a thoughtful andcarefully justified approach. Findings from the literature generally suggest that
estimates of prevalence rates for difficult topics are best based on self-administeredinterviews (Aquilino, 1994; Catania, Dermott, & Pollack, 1986). Nonetheless, insteadof interviewing children, we chose to use a faster retrospective design. Thisapproach, which is less invasive and precludes the need for parental consent, wasalso adopted in the national prevalence studies in the United Kingdom (Cawson,
2000; Radford et al., 2011).
Using an online panel for scientific purposes can be methodologically problematic.
First, using the internet leads to an underrepresentation of those groups that haveno, or limited, access to it. Also, the researcher cannot check whether the person towhom it was sent in fact completed the questionnaire. Another constraint of thisformat was that the fieldwork was terminated as soon as the target number ofparticipants was reached, preventing the exact response rate from being determined.
Our sample can hence be best described as a convenience sample of respondents
who have chosen to be panel members and are thus willing and able to fill out aquestionnaire relatively rapidly. Therefore, the sample may not be representative forthe total population. Taking these restrictions into account, however, we found noevidence that falsifies the claim that our samples are representative of the respective
target populations.
In the sampling process, quotas for gender and age group were considered in orderto achieve comparability by gender and age group (18-24, 25-30) of respondents.
Proportions by sport discipline and sport level were not considered, so it is notknown if the sample is representative for the whole population. It is notable that the
number of female respondents who competed at the recreational level (50%) ishigher than the number of male respondents (30%). In other words, male
respondents had participated at higher levels of competition in sport than female
respondents. This is a situation comparable to the general population. Since theoverall results of the CASES-study show higher prevalence-rates for males than forfemales in sport, it has to be reflected that this finding might be based on interrelated
effects of gender relations and hegemonic cultures in sport as well as the specificstructures of competitive sport.
The questionnaire was a retrospective self-report, which tend to have false positives
and negatives. The validity of retrospective reports of adverse childhood experiences
is frequently debated in the literature (e.g., Hardt & Rutter, 2004) as such reports
tend to involve a substantial number of false negatives and measurement errors,
whereas false positive reports are thought to be less probable. Given the latterassumption, we feel that our prevalence estimates are likely to underestimate theprevalence of IV in sport.
Therefore, whilst this study uses the most recent, advanced and comprehensive
research instrument available to measure the prevalence of interpersonal violence, it
is possible that some who experienced IVAC do not consider themselves to be a
‘victim’ of interpersonal violence. While we operationalised the definition of violence
as defined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, we acknowledge certain
normalization processes in sport may lead people to not acknowledging theirexperiences as unwanted or unacceptable.

868. Conclusion
The aim of the CASES project was to provide robust data on the prevalence of childabuse and neglect experienced by children who participate in sport.
A key strength of the study is that the same questionnaire was administered in thesame way, at the same time, in seven separate national contexts, with young adultrespondents (age 18-30) who stated they had participated in sport before age 18 andwith samples equally weighted for gender (male/female) and age (18-24/25-30). The
CASES study is unique in this regard. In particular, it draws on a sample of young
respondents, therefore, the experiences reported refer to relatively recent
experiences rather than so-called ‘historical cases’.
The CASES study has identified prevalence rates for five categories of interpersonal
violence against children (IVAC) in sport, based on respondents (aged 18-30)
indicating one or more relevant experiences, before age 18. These rates range from
65% for psychological violence to 20% for contact sexual violence. Whilst somenational differences were evident, rates of IVAC were relatively similar across all
countries, inside and outside sport.
These behaviors have long been part of the organisational culture of sports and, as
we have seen, are universal (the same happens in all countries) and ‘normal’ (byfrequency, in space and time) for both children and adults. For this reason some ofthese behaviours are difficult to identify as unacceptable, especially as they belong
to adults or happen under the eyes of adults who are directly responsible forchildren.
Therefore, our general conclusion is that (potentially) harmful behaviour is a frequent
and widespread experience for children within sport (in Europe). This leads us tosuggest that sport may not provide the protective, positive and healthy environment
for children that is sometimes assumed and claimed.
CASES has demonstrated that IVAC in sport is a serious and widespread problem.
Certainly, on the basis of our analysis, IVAC in sport evidently persists in all
countries involved in the study and there is no reason to believe that this is specificto these countries alone.
For some countries (inside and outside this project), prevention responses from thesport sector have, to varying degrees, been slow, narrowly focused, poorly
resourced, and with little or no independent oversight or evaluation. In somecountries, despite over 30 years of international research and advocacy in this field,
alongside the testimony of many abused athletes, policy implementation has barely
begun.
A key feature of addressing interpersonal violence against children and young
people in sport (and all athletes) is to ensure that strategy is informed, not just bywhat leaders and their organisations see or believe, but also by independent androbust scientific evidence. The CASES project provides an important part of theevidential picture that sport leaders, legislators and policymakers require in theirefforts to improve the experience of sport for all children and to improve the lives ofchildren, families and communities, through sport. Ultimately, this is the key
performance indicator, or measure, of the sport sector.
87Addressing interpersonal violence against children in sport requires cultural change.
Policy intervention is an important part of this process, but it is only one part.
Therefore, in order to meaningfully address this problem, we conclude that strong,
proactive leadership is required within all national contexts and across the whole
sport sector (public, private, and voluntary). We leave it to those with the authority tomake such decisions in relation to sport to determine the extent and timing of suchchange and the resources required.
We draw this conclusion on the basis of our findings. However, we also want torecognise that some countries and organisations have already undertaken
substantial and significant action in this regard. We very much welcome such action.
We also want to recognise the persistent endeavours of individuals within the sport
sector who work tirelessly and selflessly to provide meaningful and safe
opportunities for children and for the improvement of children’s lives. We very muchhope that you will see this study as a contribution to your work – perhaps more vital
now than ever – rather than a negation of it.
The CASES findings can now be used by sports organisations to further substantiate
and develop their measures to protect children from harm in sport. We offer somerecommendations based on these findings, again recognising that the distance somecountries and organisations have travelled in the protection and safeguarding ofchildren in sport may make these recommendations more or less relevant.

88

9. Recommendations
A. Government departments or ministries responsible for sport should:
1. Ensure general policies and strategies on child protection and ‘safeguarding’include and apply to sport.
2. Incorporate systematic, longitudinal research on prevalence of interpersonal
violence against children in sport into national strategies and action plans for
sport.
3. Provide an independent body or agency where those affected byinterpersonal violence in sport can report their experiences and receive help
and support.
4. Ensure national agencies or federations are supported and appropriately
resourced to introduce and/or increase efforts to raise awareness of andprevent interpersonal violence in sport.
5. Ensure prevention efforts extend to the local level (e.g. voluntary sports clubs)
and are not limited to ‘umbrella’ sports federations.
B. International, national and federal bodies should:
6. Acknowledge all forms of interpersonal violence against children inside sport.
7. Introduce measures to prevent interpersonal violence in sport and ensurechildren’s rights are incorporated into all levels of organisational structures in
sport.
8. Ensure strategic policy is informed by evidence on prevalence rates ofinterpersonal violence against children.
9. Evaluate and improve the efficacy of prevention measures throughlongitudinal assessment of interpersonal violence against children in sport.
C. Prevention strategies should:
10. Include compulsory training across all categories of interpersonal violenceagainst children, including peer violence, for those with responsibility forchildren in sport.
11. Establish sport-specific and independent contact points for support, advice,complaints and reports (e.g. a helpline).
12. Acknowledge the important role that sports personnel have in recognisinginterpersonal violence, receiving and handling disclosures, and the support
they need to carry out these roles safely and effectively.
8913. Address interpersonal violence against children at all levels of sport (fromrecreational grassroot to competitive and elite sport) and be sensitive to thepotential for heightened risk in competitive sport.
D. Training and education should:
14. Convey that interpersonal violence against children can occur in different
forms and that some forms (e.g. peer violence, psychological violence) are
more prevalent than others.
15. Convey that the risk for interpersonal violence against children might increaseas the child moves beyond recreational sport.
16. Recognize that interpersonal violence against children is a significant problem
for both males and females and that boys and men may be particularly
underrepresented in official reports.
17. Recognise that children participating in sport may have experienced
interpersonal violence in other contexts and that adults in sport may be
important contact points to support children.
18. Recognise that interpersonal violence in sport does not stop at age 18.

90References
Alexander, K., Stafford, A. & Lewis, R. (2011). The experiences of children
participating in organised sport in the UK. Edinburgh: The University of
Edinburgh/NSPCC.
Anghelescu, C., Stativa, E., & Vitcu, A. (2006). Knowledge attitudes and practices onparenting in Romania. Unicef, FCN, CEDP, Editura: Alpha MDN, 2006.
Aquilino, W. S. (1994). Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 210–240.
Brackenridge, C. (2001). Spoilsports. Understanding and preventing sexual
exploitation in sport. London, New York: Routledge.
Catania, J. A., Dermott, L. J., & Pollack, L. M. (1986). Questionnaire response bias
and face-to-face interview sample: Bias in sexuality research. The Journal of
Sex Research, 22(1), 52–72.
Cawson, P. (2000). Child Maltreatment in the United Kingdom: A Study of thePrevalence of Abuse and Neglect. Executive Summary November 2000.
November, 1–20.
Council of Europe (1975). European Sport for All Charter.
Council of Europe (1992). European Sport for All Charter.
Council of Europe (2000). Resolution on the Prevention of Sexual Harassment andAbuse of Women, Young People and Children in Sport.
Council of Europe (2007). Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual
Exploitation and Sexual Abuse. Retrieved from: https://rm.coe.int/1680084822
Council of Europe (2010) Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)9 of the Committee of
Ministers to member states on the revised Code of Sports Ethics. Retrieved
from:https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805c
ecaa
CPSU (2018). Standards for safeguarding and protecting children in sport. Retrieved
from: https://thecpsu.org.uk/resource-library/tools/standards-for-safeguardingand-protecting-children-in-sport/
CPSU (2019). Framework for maintaining and embedding safeguarding for children
in and through sport. Retrieved from: https://thecpsu.org.uk/resourcelibrary/tools/framework-for-maintaining-and-embedding-safeguarding-forchildren-in-and-through-sport/
CPSU (2021). Child Abuse in a Sports Setting. Retrieved from:https://thecpsu.org.uk/help-advice/introduction-to-safeguarding/child-abuse-ina-sports-setting/
Curry, T.J. (1991). Fraternal bonding in the locker room: A profeminist analysis oftalk about competition and women. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8(2): 119-135.
División de Estadística y Estudios, Secretaría General Técnica del Ministerio deCultura y Deporte (June 2021). Encuesta de Hábitos Deportivos en España
91

2020. Ministerio de Cultura y Deporte. Retrieved from:https://www.culturaydeporte.gob.es/en/dam/jcr:07b62374-bfe9-4a65-9e7e03a09c8778c3/encuesta-de-habitos-deportivos-2020.pdf
European Commission (2007). White Paper on Sport. Retrieved from: https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52007DC0391
European Parliament (2002). Resolution on Women and Sport. Retrieved from:https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5478dc91-3ff4-4ad1a7aa-7727ca791bbc/language-en
European Union (2010). Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse, sexual
exploitation of children and child pornography. Official Journal of theEuropean Union. Strasbourg: European Union.
Euser, E.M., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Prinzie, P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J.
(2010). Prevalence of child maltreatment in the Netherland. Child
Maltreatment, 15(1): 5-17.
Fasting, F., Huffman, D. & Svela Sand, T. (2015). Gender-based Violence inZambian Sport: Prevalence and Prevention. The Norwegian Olympic andParalympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (NIF).
Gilbert, R., Spatz Widom, C., Browne, K., Fergusson, D., Webb, E., & Janson, S.
(2009). Child maltreatment 1: Burden and consequences of childmaltreatment in high-income countries. The Lancet, Jan 3-Jan 9, 373, 68-81.
Gradinaru, C., Stanculescu, & D., Manole, M. (2016). BULLYING-UL ÎN RÂNDUL
COPIILOR Studiu sociologic la nivel national. Retrieved fromhttps://www.salvaticopiii.ro/sci-ro/files/10/10551dfa-f0b2-4cb0-a10308d811dc319.pdf
Grey-Thompson, T. (2017) Duty of care in sport: independent report to government.
Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/duty-of-care-insport-review
Hardt, J., & Rutter, M. (2004). Validity of adult retrospective reports of adverse
childhood experiences: Review of the evidence. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 45(2), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14697610.2004.00218.x
Hartill, M. (2005). Sport and the sexually abused male child. Sport, Education andSociety, 10(3): 287-304. doi: 10.1080/13573320500254869
Hartill, M. (2014). Exploring narratives of boyhood sexual subjection in male-sport.
Sociology of Sport Journal, 31(1), 23-43.
Hartill, M. (2016). Sexual Abuse in Youth Sport: A Sociocultural Analysis. London:
Routledge.
HM Government (2018). Working together to safeguard children: a guide to interagency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. London:
Department for Education.
International Olympic Committee (2007). Consensus Statement on sexual
harassment & abuse in sport. Lausanne.
92Kerr, G., Willson, E. & Stirling, A. (2019). Prevalence of maltreatment among current
and former national team athletes. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Kirby, S.L., Greaves, L. & Hankivsky, O. (2000). The dome of silence: sexual
harassment and abuse in sport. London: Zed Books.
Klein, M. & Palzkill, B. (1998). Gewalt gegen Mädchen und Frauen im Sport(Pilotstudie im Auftrag des Ministeriums für Frauen, Jugend, Familie undGesundheit des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Reihe „Dokumente undBerichte“ 46). Düsseldorf: Ministerium für Frauen, Jugend, Familie undGesundheit des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen.
Krahn, A. (2021). Psychological abuse in women’s volleyball. In M. Lang (ed.),Routledge Handbook of Athlete Welfare (pp. 69-80). London, New York:
Routledge.
Krug, E.G., Dahlberg, L.L., Mercy, J.A., Zwi, A.B. & Lozano, R.L. (2002) (eds.).
World report on violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organisation.
Lang, M. & Hartill, M. (2015). Safeguarding and child protection in sport in England.
In: Lang, M. & Hartill, M. (eds.) Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse inSport: International Perspectives in Research, Policy and Practice. London:
Routledge. pp. 13-22.
Lang, M. & Papaefstathiou, M. (2021). Barred: Criminal record checks as a tool toprevent child abuse in sport. In Lang, M. (ed.) The Routledge Handbook ofAthlete Welfare. London: Routledge. pp. 365-375.
Marin, R., & Zaharia R. (2016). Stop Violenței împotriva copiilor! Retrieved fromhttps://www.unicef.org/romania/media/1321/file/Ghid%20de%20lucru%20cu%
20familia%20%C8%99i%20comunitatea%20pentru%20profesioni%C8%99tii%20locali.pdf
Mayer, J., Giel, K.E., Malcolm D., Schneider, S., Diehl, K., Zipfel, S. & Thiel, A.
(2018). Compete or rest? Willingness to compete hurt among adolescent elite
athletes. Psychology of Sport Exercise, 35, 143-150.
Mayer, J., Kühnle, F. & Thiel, A. (2021). Presenteeism in elite sport organisations: aframework for understanding athletes’ decisions to practice sport despite
Health concerns. In M. Lang (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Athlete Welfare(pp. 81-93). London, New York: Routledge.
Messner, M. and Sabo, D. (eds) (1990). Sport, Men and the Gender Order.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Meuser, M. (2007). Serious Games. Competition and the homosocial construction of
masculinity. Nordic Journal for Masculinity Studies, 2 (1), 38-51.
Mountjoy et al. (2016). International Olympic Committee consensus statement:harassment and abuse (non-accidental violence) in sport. British Journal ofSports Medicine, 50, 1019–1029.
Ohlert, J., Seidler, C., Rau, T. et al. (2018) Sexual violence in organized sport inGermany. Ger J Exerc Sport Res 48, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662017-0485-993

Ohlert, J., Schäfer, A., Rau, T. & Allroggen, M. (in print). Psychische Gewalt gegen
Athlet*innen – ein Problem nicht nur im Turnsport. Leistungssport.
Ohlert, J., Vertommen, T., Rulofs, B., Rau, T. & Allroggen, M. (2020). Elite athletes’
experiences of interpersonal violence in organized sport in Germany, theNetherlands, and Belgium. European Journal of Sport Science (online first).
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2020.1781266
Pereda, N., Guilera, G., Forns, M., Gómez-Benito, J. (2009). The prevalence of childsexual abuse in community and student samples: A meta-analysis. ClinicalPsychology Review, 29, 328–338.
Radford, L., Corral, S., Bradley, C., Fisher, H., Bassett, C., Howat, N. & Collishaw,
S. (2011). Child Abuse and Neglect in the UK Today. NSPCC, London.
Ray, L. J. (2011). Violence & society. London: Sage.
Rulofs, B. et al. (2016). »Safe Sport«. Schutz von Kindern und Jugendlichen im
organisierten Sport in Deutschland. Erste Ergebnisse desForschungsprojektes zur Analyse von Häufigkeiten, Formen, Präventions- undInterventionsmaßnahmen bei sexualisierter Gewalt.
Rulofs, B., Feiler, S., Rossi, L., Hartmann-Tews, I. & Breuer, C. (2019). Child
Protection in Voluntary Sports Clubs in Germany — Factors Fostering
Engagement in the Prevention of Sexual Violence. Children & Society, 33:
270-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12322
Rulofs, B., Doupona Topič, M., Diketmüller, R., Martin Horcajo, M., Vertommen, T.,
Toftegaard Støckel, J. & Hartill, M. (2020). Final Report: VOICES FOR
TRUTH AND DIGNITY – Combatting sexual violence in European Sport
through the voices of those affected. Cologne: German Sport University.
Stativa, E. (2002). Child abuse in social residential care institutions in Romania.
Unicef, IOMC, National Authority on Child Protection, Editura Extreme Group.
Stirling, A.E. & Kerr, G.A. (2013). The perceived effects of elite athletes' experiencesof emotional abuse in the coach–athlete relationship. International Journal ofSport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 87100. doi: 10.1080/1612197X.2013.752173
Stoltenborgh, M., van Jzendoorn, M.H., Euser, E.M., and Bakermans-Kranenburg,
M.J. (2011) A Global Perspective on Child Sexual Abuse: Meta-Analysis ofPrevalence Around the World. Child Maltreatment, 16(2) 79-101.
Sethi, D., Yon, Y., Parekh, N., Anderson, T., Huber, J., Rakovac, I. & Meinck, F.
(2018). European status report on preventing child maltreatment.
Copenhagen: World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe.
Retrieved from:https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/381140/wh12-ecm-repeng.pdf
United Nations (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from:https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (2011). General comment No.
13: The right of the child to freedom from all forms of violence.
94Vertommen, T., Schipper-van Veldhoven, N., Wouters, K., Kampen, J. K.,
Brackenridge, C. H., Rhind, D. J. A., . . . van den Eede, F. (2016).
Interpersonal violence against children in sport in the Netherlands andBelgium. Child Abuse & Neglect, 51, 223–236.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.10.006
Vertommen, T., Kampen, J., Schipper-van Veldhoven, N., Wouters, K., Uzieblo, K., &Van Den Eede, F. (2017). Profiling perpetrators of interpersonal violenceagainst children in sport based on a victim survey. Child Abuse & Neglect, 63,
172–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.11.029
Vertommen, T., & Parent, S. (2020). Measuring the prevalence of interpersonal
violence against children in sport. In M. Lang (Ed.), Routledge Handbook ofAthlete Welfare (pp. 385–395). Routledge.
World Health Organisation (WHO) (1999). Report of the Consultation on Child Abuse
Prevention. Available: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/65900
World Health Organisation (WHO) (2016) Global plan of action to strengthen the roleof the health system within a national multisectoral response to addressinterpersonal violence, in particular against women and girls, and againstchildren. Geneva: World Health Organisation. Available at:https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/violence/global-plan-ofaction/en/
Wright, J. & Clarke, G. (1999). Sport, the media and the construction of compulsory
heterosexuality: a case study of women’s ruby union. International Review for
the Sociology of Sport, 34(3), 227-243.

95

Appendices1. Basic information for the total sample
TOTAL SAMPLE (cross-national; N = 10,302)
Age24.37 years; SD=3.7 Min: 18; Max: 30
Sex
Male5077 (49.3%)
Female5152 (50.0%)
Other
35 (0.3%)
Overall Experience Sport (1= very good; 5= very poor) 1.8; SD = 0.815
Min:1; Max: 5.
Minority
1163 (11.3%)
Disability
615 (6 %)Where did you practice your sport?
sport club
7278 (70.6%)
sport camp1636 (15.9%)
special training centre for elite athletes
658 (6.4%)
fitness centre
1871 (18.2)
non-sport club, but provided sporting activities
924 (9.0%)
private or self-organised setting
2058 (20.0%)
organised, extra-curricular school sport
3133 (30.4%)
other
320 (3.1%)
Participation in organised sports for those with a disability
only: 686 (6.7%); both: 1410 (13.7%)
sports level
recreational level4141 (40.2%)
club/local level3536 (34.3%)
regional level
1670 (16.2%)
national level
740 (7.2%)
international level
215 (2.1%)
sexual orientation
male
femaleheterosexual
4221 (83.1%)
4224 (82.0%)
lesbian
37 (0.7%)
132 (2.6%)gay
235 (4.6%)
16 (0.3%)
bisexual
230 (4.5%)479 (9.3%)
other
77 (1.5%)
91 (1.8%)
missing
277 (5.5%)
210 (4.1%)
sport participated inmalefemaleFootball3209 (27.5%)
901 (7.9%)
Basketball1130 (9.7%)
722 (6.3%)
Tennis870 (7.5%)
762 (6.7%)
Swimming
702 (6.0%)1130 (9.9%)
Table Tennis
415 (3.6%)
181 (1.6%)
Athletics
385 (3.3%)
443 (3.9%)
Volleyball370 (3.2%)
810 (7.1%)
Exercise & Fitness
368 (3.2%)
400 (3.5%)
Handball356 (3.0%)
487 (4.3%)
Cycling
299 (2.6%)
164 (1.4%)
Dance
102 (0.9%)1453 (12.8%)
Gymnastics
107 (0.9%)611 (5.4%)
Badminton
197 (2.5%)426 (3.7%)

96

2. Prevalence Data: Item level2.1 Inside sport
Yes, insidesportFrequency (%)
Neglect
1. I was not provided with adequate support for my basic well-being
2. I did not receive appropriate medical care when needed
3. I was placed at risk of harm due to not being properly supervised

1550 (15.0%)1160 (11.3%)
1431 (13.7%)

4. I was not provided with the appropriate equipment/kit to safely perform my activity
5. I was instructed or forced to be absent from school so I could participate in otheractivities
6. I was forced to participate in unsafe conditions, extreme weather, where facilities or
equipment were unsafe, or safety rules ignored
Psychological Violence

1657 (16.1%)
1245 (12.1%)

7. I was humiliated or made to feel inferior or small
8. I was criticised about my physical appearance, including my weight, ‘look’, clothes
or body shape
9. I was ignored or excluded
10. I was not praised for my efforts or achievements

3490 (33.9%)3041 (29.5%)

1629 (15.8%)3058 (29.7%)3576 (34.7%)

11. I was screamed at, sworn at, threatened, or otherwise verbally abused
12. I was asked, instructed or forced to perform at unrealistically high standards
13. I was, instructed or forced to participate in initiation ceremonies or other rituals
intended to humiliate, degrade or belittle myself or others
14. I was shouted at or threatened because of my performance or because I did notwant to train/compete/practice
15. I was expelled from my team/club/group, or threatened with this, for reasons
unrelated to my performance or behaviour, or for reasons not explained
Physical Violence
16. I was instructed or forced to do exercise as a form of punishment

2150 (20.9%)
1946 (18.9%)1043 (10.1%)

17. I was instructed or forced to participate in ceremonies or other rituals involving
harmful physical activities
18. I was instructed or forced to take substances to manage my body weight/size,enhance my performance, delay puberty or stop or delay my period
19. I was instructed or forced to play, participate or perform while injured or sick or at an
intensity or frequency that was potentially harmful
20. I was punched, slapped, grabbed / pushed, or otherwise physically assaulted
Non-contact sexual violence (NCSV)
21. I was subjected to obscene or sexual comments

923 (9.0%)1365 (13.2%)

2916 (28.3%)

1045 (10.1%)
1875 (18.2%)
1560 (15.1%)
1958 (19.0%)

22. I was subjected to inappropriate staring or leering
23. I was asked, instructed or forced to view sexual images, videos or messages
24. I was asked, instructed or forced to produce or share sexual images, videos or text
messages featuring me or others
25. Sexual images or videos of me were produced or shared by someone else

1836 (17.8%)
766 (7.4%)
794 (7.7%)

26. I was asked, instructed or forced to undress or perform sexual acts on myself forthe pleasure of someone else
27. I was 'flashed' at / someone 'exposed' themselves to me in person
28. I was 'flashed' at / someone 'exposed' themselves to me online

675 (6.6%)

29. I was instructed or forced to participate in initiations or rituals including degrading or
harmful activities of a sexual nature, without physical contact
Contact Sexual Violence (CSV)
30. I was kissed by someone / I was asked, instructed or forced to kiss someone

97

1924 (18.7%)654(6.3%)

1037 (10.1%)883 (8.6%)
825 (8.0%)1091 (10.6%)

31. I was caressed or otherwise touched sexually / I was asked, instructed or forced totouch someone sexually
32. I had genital contact with someone (including masturbation)

792 (7.7%)

33. I engaged in (gave or received) oral sex
34. I engaged in actual or attempted vaginal or anal sex (with an object or person)
35. I was, instructed or forced to participate in initiation ceremonies or other rituals of asexual nature that involved physical contact

721 (7.0%)
788 (7.6%)
744 (7.2%)

792 (7.7%)

2.2 Outside sport
Yes, outsidesportFrequency (%)
Neglect
1. I was not provided with adequate support for my basic well-being
2. I did not receive appropriate medical care when needed
3. I was placed at risk of harm due to not being properly supervised

1684 (16.3%)
1314 (12.8%)
1548 (15.0%)

4. I was not provided with the appropriate equipment/kit to safely perform my activity
5. I was instructed or forced to be absent from school so I could participate in otheractivities
6. I was forced to participate in unsafe conditions, extreme weather, where facilities or
equipment were unsafe, or safety rules ignored
Psychological Violence

1465 (14.2%)
1217 (11.8%)

7. I was humiliated or made to feel inferior or small
8. I was criticised about my physical appearance, including my weight, ‘look’, clothes
or body shape
9. I was ignored or excluded
10. I was not praised for my efforts or achievements

4310 (41.8%)4618 (44.8%)

1347 (13.1%)

4156 (40.3%)3790 (36.8%)

11. I was screamed at, sworn at, threatened, or otherwise verbally abused
12. I was asked, instructed or forced to perform at unrealistically high standards
13. I was, instructed or forced to participate in initiation ceremonies or other rituals
intended to humiliate, degrade or belittle myself or others
14. I was shouted at or threatened because of my performance or because I did notwant to train/compete/practice
15. I was expelled from my team/club/group, or threatened with this, for reasons
unrelated to my performance or behaviour, or for reasons not explained
Physical Violence
16. I was instructed or forced to do exercise as a form of punishment

3229 (31.3%)
1959 (19.0%)1264 (12.3%)

17. I was instructed or forced to participate in ceremonies or other rituals involving
harmful physical activities
18. I was instructed or forced to take substances to manage my body weight/size,enhance my performance, delay puberty or stop or delay my period
19. I was instructed or forced to play, participate or perform while injured or sick or at an
intensity or frequency that was potentially harmful
20. I was punched, slapped, grabbed / pushed, or otherwise physically assaulted
Non-contact sexual violence (NCSV)
21. I was subjected to obscene or sexual comments

1131 (11.0%)

22. I was subjected to inappropriate staring or leering
23. I was asked, instructed or forced to view sexual images, videos or messages
24. I was asked, instructed or forced to produce or share sexual images, videos or text
messages featuring me or others
25. Sexual images or videos of me were produced or shared by someone else

3098 (30.1%)1318 (12.8%)1286 (12.5%)

981645 (16.0%)
1319 (12.8%)

1594 (15.5%)

1071 (10.4%)1459 (14.2%)
1971 (19.1%)
3165 (30.7%)985 (9.6%)

26. I was asked, instructed or forced to undress or perform sexual acts on myself forthe pleasure of someone else
27. I was 'flashed' at / someone 'exposed' themselves to me in person
28. I was 'flashed' at / someone 'exposed' themselves to me online

1111 (10.8%)

29. I was instructed or forced to participate in initiations or rituals including degrading or
harmful activities of a sexual nature, without physical contact
Contact Sexual Violence (CSV)
30. I was kissed by someone / I was asked, instructed or forced to kiss someone
31. I was caressed or otherwise touched sexually / I was asked, instructed or forced totouch someone sexually
32. I had genital contact with someone (including masturbation)

995 (9.7%)

33. I engaged in (gave or received) oral sex
34. I engaged in actual or attempted vaginal or anal sex (with an object or person)
35. I was, instructed or forced to participate in initiation ceremonies or other rituals of asexual nature that involved physical contact99

1951 (18.9%)2220 (21.5%)2385 (23.2%)
1963 (19.1%)
2225 (21.6%)
1921 (18.6%)2034 (19.7%)
744 (7.2%)

3. Sub-group differences: Characteristics of interpersonal violence against children:‘most serious experience’3.1 Duration of experience per genderType ofviolence

Gender of
respondents

Duration of experience(s)1 day

2 days –a week> 1 week1 month> 1 month –6 months> 6 months 1 year

> 1 year - 2years>2 years

male

18.7%

16.1%

16.4%

17.7%

13.0%

8.8%

9.3%

female

22.5%

16.3%

12.1%

11.5%

11.6%

12.7%

13.3%

male

17.9%

15.0%

13.1%

15.2%

12.7%

10.4%

15.7%

female

15.5%

11.5%

10.1%

12.0%

10.6%

14.4%

25.9%

male

21.7%

16.3%

16.5%

15.3%

10.4%

8.8%

11.1%

Neglect

49.19/<.001***

Psychological110.68/< .001***

Physical

NCSV

CSV

28.06/ <.001***
female

18.2%

17.1%

13.3%

13.4%

11.2%

11.5%

15.4%

male

18.6%

15.2%

16.8%

17.4%

13.4%

7.9%

10.7%

female

20.7%

11.1%

8.9%

12.8%

12.1%

11.4%

23.0%

male

18.7%

12.6%

19.1%

18.3%

13.4%

10.1%

7.7%

101.74/ <.001***

17.66//. 01**
female100

χ² (6) / p

20.0%

12.0%

10.4%

20.9%

15.6%

11.8%

9.3%

3.2 Duration of experience(s) per participation level
Type of violence

Neglect

Psychological

Physical101

Level of sportparticipation

Duration of experience(s)1 day

2 days - aweek> 1 week- 1month> 1 month –6 months> 6 months
to 1 year> 1 year to
2 years>2 years

Recreational

19.8%

17.3%

15.1%

13.5%

10.7%

12.4%

11.2%

Club/Local

21.9%

16.6%

15.7%

15.2%

12.3%

9.0%

9.3%

Regional

18.5%

14.4%

13.9%

17.5%

15.7%

9.6%

10.3%

National

21.5%

15.2%

10.5%

15.2%

11.0%

11.0%

15.6%

International

14.3%

11.4%

12.9%

14.3%

11.4%

15.7%

20.0%

Recreational

16.9%

14.7%

12.1%

12.9%

10.4%

11.6%

21.4%

Club/Local

16.8%

13.1%

12.2%

15.0%

11.3%

12.3%

19.2%

Regional

16.6%

12.8%

10.5%

15.7%

14.3%

11.9%

18.1%

National

18.6%

12.8%

10.7%

9.7%

12.2%

13.8%

22.2%

International

10.1%

6.4%

11.0%

6.4%

13.8%

17.4%

34.9%

Recreational

23.0%

17.1%

14.5%

14.4%

10.7%

8.9%

11.4%

Club/Local

18.7%

18.1%

16.7%

13.5%

10.6%

10.3%

12.2%

Regional

19.7%

15.3%

14.8%

14.8%

11.5%

10.3%

13.5%

National

19.9%

12.7%

13.4%

19.6%

7.2%

10.1%

17.0%

International

15.2%

11.4%

11.4%

11.4%

19.0%

12.7%

19.0%

χ² (24) / p

41.0/.02*

54.10/ <.001***40.66/ .018*

NCSV

CSV

102

Recreational

21.1%

15.0%

12.4%

14.2%

11.3%

9.5%

16.6%

Club/Local

19.0%

12.9%

15.8%

16.2%

11.4%

10.2%

14.7%

Regional

19.7%

12.2%

11.5%

15.2%

16.4%

9.8%

15.2%

National

19.7%

10.4%

10.9%

14.5%

17.1%

8.8%

18.7%

International

10.0%

15.0%

8.3%

18.3%

10.0%

3.3%

35.0%

Recreational

22.7%

13.3%

14.4%

20.2%

11.0%

11.0%

7.4%

Club/Local

17.9%

11.9%

17.3%

20.2%

15.0%

10.6%

7.3%

Regional

15.4%

11.2%

18.8%

17.7%

17.3%

10.4%

9.2%

National

18.2%

13.1%

13.1%

12.1%

17.2%

14.1%

12.1%

International

22.2%

11.1%

13.9%

16.7%

13.9%

8.3%

13.9%

44.34/ .01**

24.28/ .45

3.3. Gender of perpetrators(s) and gender of respondent(s)Type ofviolence
Neglect
Psychological
Physical
NCSV

CSV

103

Gender of perpetrator(s)Gender of
respondents

malefemaleboth (miff)malefemale
male

60.1%
35.3%
65.5%

17.3%
33.8%
11.4%

22.6%
30.8%
23.2%

female

26.3%

35.1%

38.6%

<.001***

male

67.2%

13.9%

18.9%

241.00/female

42.4%

33.1%

24.5%

<.001***

male

51.6%

22.2%

26.2%

16.80/

female

57.4%

15.8%

26.9%

<.001***

male

41.3%

34.0%

24.8%

17.234/

female

49.3%

22.6%

28.1%

<.001***

χ² (2) / p
169.23/ <.001***
854.59/

Contact details
Professor Mike Hartill
hartillm@edgehill.ac.uk
Centre for Child Protection & Safeguarding in Sport
Department of Social Sciences
Edge Hill University
St Helen’s Road
Ormskirk
L39 4QP
UK

104