Rebuilding U.S. Olympic Sport: The 2024 Congressional Commission

Timeline

1. Mar 2017The U.S. Center for SafeSport is established.
2. Feb 2018Congress assigns abuse-response duties to the Center in the Safe Sport Authorization Act.
3. Oct 2020The Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur Athletes Act requires USOPC to fund the Center and creates the commission.
4. Jul 19, 2023U.S. Soccer Federation athletes ask Congress to reform SafeSport's process.
5. Sep 6, 2023The commission holds its only public hearing.
6. Mar 1, 2024The commission delivers its final report, 'Passing the Torch.'
7. Mar 20–21, 2024Senate and House committees hold hearings on the report and SafeSport.
8. Dec 6, 2024The Safer Sports for Athletes Act is introduced in the House, proposing $10 million a year in federal funding.
9. Jun 2026SafeSport's 2025 annual report records 9,683 reports and warns that fixed USOPC funding is unsustainable; the governing bodies' council reports continuing concerns to Congress.

The ethical issues

• Independence of safeguarding bodies funded by the organizations they oversee.
• Elite performance versus grassroots access.
• Public funding versus private self-governance.
• Athlete representation and voice.
• Oversight and accountability of quasi-public sports bodies.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Athletes at all levels	Safety, support and representation.
The USOPC and national governing bodies	Funding, mission and autonomy.
The U.S. Center for SafeSport	Resources and independence.
Youth sports families and providers	Access and safety standards.
Congress and taxpayers	Oversight and use of public money.

The case

On March 1, 2024, the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics delivered its final report to Congress after a year-long study.^[1] Its co-chair called it “the most comprehensive analysis of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement and its governance ever undertaken.”^[1] SafeSport’s disciplinary procedures are examined in the U.S. Center for SafeSport and due process; this case looks at the commission’s proposals for the system as a whole, and at who should pay for keeping athletes safe.

Background

The U.S. Olympic system is unusual: the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) is a federally chartered private nonprofit that relies on self-generated revenue, such as sponsorships, rather than government appropriations.^[4] Congress has nonetheless repeatedly intervened.

The U.S. Center for SafeSport was established in March 2017, after high-profile abuse cases including Larry Nassar’s.^[2] The Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act, Congress’s first legislative response, brought mandatory reporting to amateur sports bodies and recognized the Center as “the independent national safe sport organization,” with power to investigate and sanction.^[4] The 2020 Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur Athletes Act tightened oversight of national governing bodies and required the USOPC to provide the Center $20 million a year. It also gave Congress power to dissolve the USOPC board by joint resolution, a power it has never used, and created the commission.^[2][4] Between 2017 and December 2022, the Center received over 16,000 reports and issued disciplinary decisions on nearly 2,000 adults.^[2] The CRS noted that the funding mechanism “has led some to raise concerns about the independence of the Center.”^[2]

Criticism came from athletes too. In July 2023, U.S. Soccer Federation athletes wrote to Congress that “SafeSport is failing in what it was meant to achieve.” They objected that “in the majority of cases, investigations are administratively closed, with no ruling in favor of either party,” leaving accused abusers “free to return to their sport.” Because the Center’s jurisdiction is exclusive, they added, closed cases could not be pursued by U.S. Soccer.^[6]

The commission’s 13 members included nine former Olympians and Paralympians.^[3] It reviewed tens of thousands of documents and interviewed hundreds of participants.^[1]

The rules and governance

The 277-page report made 14 recommendations.^[3] Key findings and proposals included:

• End the dual mandate. Co-chair Dionne Koller told the Senate that the USOPC’s “unworkable dual mandate” had “exacerbated athlete-safety concerns.”^[1] The report said that, lacking funding, officials focused on athletes “whose marketing would lead to more revenue generation.”^[3] It proposed letting the USOPC focus on high-performance athletes and creating an Office of Sports and Fitness in the Department of Health and Human Services for youth and grassroots sport.^[3]
• Fund and reform SafeSport. The report found a growing case backlog, too few trauma-trained investigators and gaps in coordination. It argued: “If athletes’ safety is as much of a public value as fair competition, SafeSport needs to have public support.” It proposed congressional funding similar to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency’s.^[3]
• Independent athlete voice. It called for an independent body representing high-performance athletes, with its own funding.^[1][3]
• Oversight. It proposed a Senate-confirmed inspector general overseeing the USOPC, USADA, SafeSport and governing bodies.^[3]

Koller warned that “addressing SafeSport by itself… is a recipe for further problems.”^[1]

Aftermath

Senate and House committees held hearings on the report and SafeSport on March 20 and 21, 2024.^[1][5] The Center’s chief executive told the House hearing: “Based on the trajectory of cases, I would say that our budget needs to be around $30 million.”^[5] The CRS noted the commission concluded the Center “should be retained and reformed.”^[2] The Aspen Institute praised the report’s ambition but questioned its funding plan and its removal of grassroots duties from governing bodies.^[3]

On December 6, 2024, Rep. Deborah Ross introduced the Safer Sports for Athletes Act (H.R. 10326). It would authorize “$10,000,000 or such sums as may be necessary” each year from 2025 to 2030. It would also require case managers and victim advocates, assignment of an investigator within seven business days, investigations concluded within 180 days (with extensions), a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, and appearances by the Center’s CEO before Congress at least once per Congress.^[5] Introduced late in the session, it was expected to need reintroduction.^[5] As of the latest of these sources (December 2024), none of the commission’s structural proposals had been enacted: an HHS sports office, an inspector general, or direct public funding of SafeSport.^[4][5] The funding problem the commission identified had grown by 2026. The Center’s 2025 annual report said it received 9,683 reports that year, about 186 a week and 19.6% more than in 2024. Its annual total had risen from 1,848 in 2018.^[7] The USOPC’s $20 million payment required by the 2020 Act still made up 83.6% of its revenue. The report noted that this payment “remains unindexed for inflation” and that since it began in 2021, “cost-of-living increases have reduced purchasing power by 24%” while report volume “has increased by 161%.”^[7] The Center’s board approved a deficit budget for 2025, which ended $1.21 million short, and the report warned that “the difference between available resources and rising demand is not sustainable.”^[7] The Center reported faster case handling after process changes in April 2024: an average of 140.8 days for fully adjudicated outcomes among cases opened and closed in the periods it compared. It cautioned that “fixed funding may limit the speed at which the Center is able to reach outcomes in future cases.”^[7]

The sports bodies themselves still had concerns. In a June 2026 report to Congress, the National Governing Bodies Council, which includes two members from each of the 53 governing bodies, credited the Center’s interim chief executive with opening “a level of dialogue with Center staff that was previously absent.” It added that “there are still profound operational and policy challenges with the Center.”^[8] It objected to a “continued broadening of Center scope,” which it said had created obstacles to resolving “the most critical cases involving sexual misconduct and abuse.” It proposed a study by Center, governing-body and athlete experts of the response and resolution process, and urged education rather than event-by-event audits.^[8] Two years after “Passing the Torch,” the main parties agreed that the system was under strain. They had not agreed on the commission’s answer that the public should pay for athlete safety, and the Center was still funded by the organization whose sports it polices.^[2][3][7][8]

The core dilemma

The U.S. relies on a privately funded Olympic system to protect athletes and develop sport. The commission found that structure underfunds safety and grassroots access. Should the public take on more responsibility, and at what cost to sport’s independence?

Competing values

• Independence vs. self-funding.
• Elite success vs. broad participation.
• Federal involvement vs. private governance.
• Comprehensive reform vs. incremental change.

Strongest arguments

For the commission’s approach: the current model creates conflicts of interest and underinvests in safety and youth. Public funding and oversight would build trust.

Against: a federal office and inspector general add bureaucracy; funding sources are unclear; governing bodies may lose grassroots responsibility.

Applying the frameworks

Justice

A justice lens asks whether resources are fairly distributed between elite and grassroots athletes, and whether all athletes have equal protection.

Care ethics

A care lens focuses on the system’s responsibility to protect young and vulnerable athletes.

Utilitarianism

A utilitarian lens weighs public health and safety benefits against costs and administrative burden.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are a congressional staffer reviewing the report. Stakeholders include athletes, the USOPC and families. Less visible are children in unaffiliated programs. The codes are the Amateur Sports Act and related laws.
2. Gather facts. What do backlogs and funding data show? Beware relying only on organizations’ self-reports.
3. Test options. (a) Adopt the full package. (b) Fund SafeSport directly only. (c) Strengthen oversight without new offices.
4. Check codes and law. Check statutory obligations and budget rules.
5. Decide and document. Record the reasons for each choice.
6. Communicate and follow up. Set metrics and review.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: the commission’s findings and recommendations.
• Contested: which reforms Congress should adopt; who should pay; the right federal role.

Why this case matters

The commission’s report frames a basic question for sport: how should a country organize and fund athlete safety and access, and who should oversee it?

See also: Athletes at the Table: Has the 2020 Empowering Athletes Act Given Them Real Power?.

Key terms

Duty of care

The responsibility of coaches, organizations and institutions to protect the health, safety and well-being of those in their charge. It is not a license for total control.

Institutional accountability

Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.

Conflict of interest

A situation where a person’s private interest could improperly influence a decision they make in an official role.

Distributive justice

Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.

Stakeholders

Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Should SafeSport be funded by taxpayers instead of the USOPC? What changes if it is?
2. The commission said the USOPC's dual mandate was unworkable. Should elite and grassroots sport be governed separately?
3. What would a fully independent athlete body need to be effective?
4. Should the federal government play a larger role in youth sports? What are the risks?

Sources

1. Testimony of Dionne Koller, Co-Chair, Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics & Paralympics (March 20, 2024) — U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
2. U.S. Center for SafeSport: A Primer (IF12467) — Congressional Research Service (via EveryCRSReport)
3. The long-awaited Commission report on sports governance is here. What does it say, and what comes next? — Aspen Institute Project Play
4. The United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee: A Primer (R47850) — Congressional Research Service
5. U.S. Center for SafeSport: Added funding of $10 million and faster decisions proposed in reform bill introduced in U.S. House (Dec. 2024) — Office of Rep. Deborah Ross (reprinting The Sports Examiner)
6. Letter from United States Soccer Federation athletes to Members of Congress regarding SafeSport (July 19, 2023) — U.S. Soccer Federation athletes (via AYSO)
7. U.S. Center for SafeSport 2025 Annual Report (June 2026) — U.S. Center for SafeSport
8. National Governing Bodies Council: Report to Congress (June 2026) — National Governing Bodies Council (via USOPC)