As anticipated in The Sports Consultancy’s ‘5 for 5’ article back in July looking at the priorities facing sport over the next five years, the volume and frequency of investigations, inquiries and reviews being carried out by or on behalf of sports bodies has continued to increase throughout 2017.
It is not just the volume and frequency of these investigations which is increasing, but also the complexity and the cost. Whether the investigations involve global betting syndicate networks, state-sponsored doping programmes or allegations of historical emotional or physical abuse, an increasing level of sophistication and resource is needed to address the concerns effectively.
With UK bodies coming under particular scrutiny following the implementation of the Sports Governance Code this year, the need to identify, investigate and resolve these issues – and to be seen to do so – becomes ever greater. With funding at stake, bodies will now have no choice but to act.
However, a poorly planned or poorly executed investigation can cause more harm than good. So what should an organisation take into account when commissioning or carrying out an investigation?
Failing to plan is planning to fail
In a world where bad news can spread globally at the click of a button, it is all too tempting to rush into an investigation. However, a poorly planned investigation started without adequate terms of reference, objectives and jurisdiction can take on a life of its own and be difficult to contain or stop.
The terms of reference can determine whether the investigation is likely to succeed or fail. Too wide and it may uncover a breadth of issues but never reach a satisfactory conclusion; too narrow and it may not achieve anything at all.
It is important to address at the very earliest stage some key questions, and to reflect the answers in a carefully developed terms of reference and project plan:
• What are you looking to achieve?
• Will the investigation focus on individuals
or on structural or cultural issues?
• What time period are you investigating?
• What do your rules allow you to do/ prevent you from doing?
• What are your jurisdictional parameters?
• What powers do you have to collect evidence?
• What is the budget?
• How long should the investigation last?
Communication is key
The media attention that sport draws is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can deliver millions in commercial deals, whilst on the other the public scrutiny that sports bodies and their personnel come under can be more intense than any other industry.
Investigations arise when negative issues have been identified so developing and executing a joined-up communications plan from the outset and throughout is critical.
This includes educating the media and public regarding the purpose, scope, limitations and likely outcomes of the investigation, as well as proactively managing the inevitable leaks that may arise during the course of the investigation. Further, an effective internal communications programme will ensure that personnel and stakeholders within the sports body itself understand the process, how to contribute and remain ‘on message’.
The right personnel
Self-regulation is one of the cornerstones of sport and sports bodies are traditionally extremely resistant to any help or oversight from outside of their sport. Whilst in some cases the sports bodies themselves may well be best placed to carry out an investigation, questions of actual or perceived conflict, lack of objectivity, political sensitivity or legal expertise may arise. For these reasons, bodies should consider whether independent scrutiny might be more appropriate.
Whatever the approach, bodies should think very carefully about the most appropriate individuals or organisations to carry out any investigation.
Depending on the scale and nature of the investigation, a best-practice investigation panel would typically comprise a combination of legal, subject-matter, investigative and sportspecific expertise. Specialist services like digital forensics might also be considered for complex investigations. Consideration should be given to the support that an investigating panel has in terms of secretariat services, evidence gathering and sharing of best practice and know-how across similar investigations.
Achieving a meaningful outcome
An investigation is pointless unless there is a clear plan of what to do in the event of a serious issue being identified and unless there is a willingness – or a compulsion – to address any such issue.
A good investigation will result in clear recommendations aimed at addressing the issue and mitigating the risk of a recurrence. The recommendations should be achievable, appropriate and proportionate for the structure and sport in question.
A clear plan for implementation – whether through rule changes, policy updates or sanctions – should be outlined and actioned. This may well also include structural measures such as education programmes, independent monitoring units or whistleblowing services, ensuring earlier detection or prevention in future.
The future
New sports investigations are announced almost weekly – and many more investigations are being conducted that are not announced – and there is no doubt that we will continue to hear more and more on this topic. We expect a lot of developments in the area as sports look for a more uniform and cost-effective approach to how the investigations are conducted.
