The U.S. Center for SafeSport: Protecting Athletes, Protecting Due Process

Timeline

1. Mar 2017The U.S. Center for SafeSport begins operating.
2. Feb 14, 2018The Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act becomes law.
3. Jan 2019Figure skater John Coughlin dies by suicide a day after being temporarily suspended during an investigation.
4. 2019CEO Shellie Pfohl steps down, citing a flood of reports and limited resources.
5. Dec 2020A Government Accountability Office report reviews how the Center handles cases.
6. Jul 2023More than 100 athletes write to Congress saying SafeSport is failing to prevent abuse.
7. Mar 1, 2024The Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics recommends direct public funding and major reforms.

The ethical issues

• Due process: fair procedures for the accused in a non-criminal system that can end careers.
• Speed vs. thoroughness: backlogs and long investigations harm both sides.
• Independence: funding from the organizations the Center oversees.
• Transparency: confidentiality for victims against public understanding of decisions.
• Temporary measures: suspending people before allegations are resolved.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Athletes and survivors	Safety, prompt action and being believed.
Accused coaches and athletes	Fair process, timely decisions and reputations.
National governing bodies	Funding the Center and complying with its decisions.
USOPC	Credibility after past abuse scandals.
Congress	Oversight and funding.
Parents and youth athletes	Confidence that sport is safe.

The case

For decades, abuse complaints in U.S. Olympic sports were handled by the national governing bodies that also selected teams, raised money and protected their reputations. The scandal involving USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar, who abused many young athletes over many years, exposed the failures of that system. The U.S. Center for SafeSport, a nonprofit in Denver, began operating in March 2017.^[1] On February 14, 2018, Congress gave it a statutory role. The law also required adults in amateur sports to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement.^[2]

Background

The growth in reports was steep. In 2018 alone the Center received 2,770 reports of sexual abuse, bringing its total to more than 4,000. By February 2020, the total was almost 5,000 and it had sanctioned 627 people.^[1] In October 2020, it had about 1,200 open investigations, with about half its staff working on the backlog. By October 2021 it had resolved 40% of that backlog and had more than 100 employees.^[1] In May 2023, it reported a staff of 117.^[1]

Congress returned to the issue in 2020. The Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur Athletes Act of 2020 gave Congress the power to dissolve the USOPC board of directors.^[1] Senator Maria Cantwell asked the Senate Commerce Committee to oversee SafeSport to make sure it was investigating adequately.^[1]

The rules and governance

The process has two kinds of arbitration. The Center can impose “temporary measures,” such as interim suspensions, when it believes they are needed based on the evidence, the severity of the allegations or the risk to athletes.^[1] A hearing to challenge them is limited to whether there was reasonable cause. The arbitrator rules within 24 hours, there is no appeal, and the Center can impose new temporary measures in the same case later.^[1] Final sanctions can be challenged in a separate merits arbitration.^[1]

Data reported by the Center show how often findings were challenged and changed. Of 27 cases referred to arbitration, six went to temporary-measures hearings and 21 to merits arbitration. Of the 21, 11 substantially upheld the Center’s findings and sanctions, three substantially modified them, three overturned them, and four were still pending in late August 2020.^[1] The public directory lists people under temporary measures because of the severity of allegations as well as those sanctioned. As of June 30, 2020, it listed about 1,300 people.^[1]

What the 2018 law requires

The statute did more than recognize the Center. It directed the Center to “exercise jurisdiction over the corporation, each national governing body, and each paralympic sports organization with regard to safeguarding amateur athletes against abuse, including emotional, physical, and sexual abuse.”^[2] It required the Center to maintain an office for education and outreach and an office for response and resolution.^[2] Governing bodies had to adopt policies set by the Center. These included “reasonable procedures to limit one-on-one interactions” between minor athletes and adults who are not their guardians unless another adult is within “observable and interruptible distance,” and procedures to prohibit retaliation against people who report abuse.^[2] They also had to submit to “regular and random audits” by experts independent of the governing bodies. The law extended civil claims by victims to 10 years after they discover the violation or injury, or after they turn 18.^[2] It preserved the governing bodies’ power to impose interim measures before the Center takes jurisdiction, and it required the Center to report annually to Congress, with an audit.^[2]

What SafeSport does

SafeSport has exclusive jurisdiction over allegations of sexual misconduct in U.S. Olympic and Paralympic organizations, and discretion to handle emotional abuse, bullying and harassment. It is not a law enforcement agency and cannot jail anyone. It can impose sanctions up to a lifetime ban from Olympic sports, and it publishes a database of sanctioned people. There is no statute of limitations.^[1] People who are sanctioned can appeal to an independent arbitrator.^[1][3]

Overwhelmed from the start

The Center opened with three full-time employees.^[1] Reports poured in. CEO Shellie Pfohl stepped down in 2019, saying the Center lacked the resources to handle more than 1,800 reports.^[1][4] Its budget later rose to about $21 million, and by May 2023 it reported receiving about 150 reports a week.^[1] According to its 2022 annual report, since 2017 it had closed 4,500 of 12,751 cases administratively and found violations in 1,720.^[1]

A 2020 Government Accountability Office review found that most cases were resolved in one to three months, but 14 percent took more than a year.^[3] From February 2018 through June 2020, the Center created and resolved 3,909 cases, mostly through administrative or jurisdictional closure. Administrative closure can follow insufficient evidence or a claimant’s decision not to take part.^[3] In the year ending June 30, 2020, it resolved 2,460 cases and imposed sanctions in 262. Permanent ineligibility was the most serious sanction in 57 cases and “ineligibility until further notice” in 95, and the Center referred 424 reports to law enforcement.^[3] GAO described the steps the Center said it took to make the process fair. These included protecting anonymity and privacy, letting both claimants and respondents take part in investigations, and giving both the right to an advisor and to seek arbitration of sanctions or other measures.^[3]

Criticism from both sides

Athletes and survivors have said the Center is too slow and closes too many cases without findings. In July 2023, more than 100 athletes, including members of the U.S. women’s soccer team, wrote to Congress saying SafeSport was failing to prevent abuse.^[6]

Accused people and their lawyers argue that the process lacks protections that courts provide, and that temporary suspensions can destroy reputations before any finding. In January 2019, figure skater and coach John Coughlin died by suicide a day after SafeSport temporarily suspended him during an investigation.^[1][5]

The Center’s funding has come mostly from the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee and the governing bodies it oversees, which critics say undermines its independence.^[1]

Calls for reform

On March 1, 2024, the congressional Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics found that SafeSport had lost the trust of many athletes because of backlogs, long resolution times and administrative closures. It recommended keeping the Center but making it fully independent, with direct public funding and better case handling.^[7][8]

Aftermath

The commission’s report reopened the framework Congress set in 2018. Its call for public funding of SafeSport and a federal office for grassroots sport addressed the Center’s dependence on money from the organizations it polices, a criticism made since the Center opened.^[8] The arbitration record left both sides with evidence. Most challenged sanctions were upheld, but some were modified or overturned.^[1]

The core dilemma

SafeSport was designed to take abuse cases away from organizations with conflicts of interest. But it must make career-ending decisions without the tools or protections of a court, with limited resources and enormous demand. How should a sports safeguarding system balance protecting athletes against fairness to the accused?

Competing values

• Protection vs. due process: acting quickly to remove risks against fair procedures.
• Confidentiality vs. transparency: shielding victims against explaining decisions.
• Independence vs. funding: money from the governed against autonomy.
• Breadth vs. depth: handling every report against investigating serious cases thoroughly.

Strongest arguments

For a strong SafeSport: the old system failed abuse victims catastrophically. A specialized, independent body with power to ban people is better than leaving cases to governing bodies. Its flaws call for more resources, not less authority.

For stronger protections for the accused: a lifetime ban is a severe sanction. Without full due process, mistakes are likely, and temporary suspensions can harm people who are later cleared.

Applying the frameworks

Rights

A rights lens holds two sets of rights in tension: athletes’ right to safety and to be heard, and accused people’s rights to fair notice, an opportunity to respond and a timely decision. It asks whether listing people under temporary measures in a public directory respects the presumption of innocence.

Ethics of care

The care lens centers survivors, who may wait months or years for resolution, and asks how the system can be trauma-informed. It also recognizes the human toll on accused people under prolonged investigation.

Kantian (duty)

A Kantian lens asks whether the system treats every person, complainant and respondent, as an end. It considers whether an organization funded by the bodies it oversees can fulfill its duty of impartiality.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are a SafeSport investigator who receives a report that a well-known coach sexually harassed an adult athlete years ago. The stakeholders include the complainant, the coach, the coach’s current athletes, the national governing body and the public. The codes in play are the SafeSport Code, federal law and arbitration rules.
2. Gather facts. What evidence is available? Are there current risks to minors or other athletes? What would temporary measures mean for the coach’s livelihood and reputation?
3. Test options. Options: (a) impose temporary measures now; (b) investigate without interim measures but with safety planning; (c) close the case administratively for lack of evidence. Weigh athlete safety against due process.
4. Check codes and law. Would your decision withstand arbitration? Would it look fair to both parties if made public?
5. Decide and document. Record the evidence, the risk assessment and the reasons.
6. Communicate and follow up. Communicate with both parties about the process and timelines, and support the complainant throughout.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: the Center’s statutory role; its backlog and funding history; the 2024 commission’s recommendations.
• Contested: whether its procedures are fair to the accused; how it should be funded; whether it can be fixed or needs replacing.

Why this case matters

SafeSport is the main test of whether an independent body can handle abuse in sport better than the governing bodies themselves. Its struggles show the tension between protecting athletes and treating the accused fairly.

See also: Is SafeSport Bound by the Constitution? The Fourth Circuit Says No.

Key terms

Due process

Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.

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.

Codes and guardrails

Written rules of conduct, backed by real consequences, that turn values into expected behavior. Without enforcement they are decoration.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. SafeSport can bar people from Olympic sports without a criminal conviction. What standard of proof and what procedures should apply?
2. Athletes say cases take too long and are often closed without findings. How should a body with limited resources set priorities?
3. Should SafeSport be funded by the Olympic organizations it oversees, by Congress, or some other way? Why?
4. How should confidentiality for victims be balanced against transparency about decisions?
5. What responsibilities does a safeguarding body have toward people who are temporarily suspended but not yet found responsible?

Sources

1. U.S. Center for SafeSport — Wikipedia
2. Public Law 115-126: Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017 — GovInfo
3. Amateur Athletes: The U.S. Center for SafeSport's Response and Resolution Process for Reports of Abuse — U.S. Government Accountability Office
4. SafeSport CEO Shellie Pfohl will step down at year's end — USA Today
5. Coughlin kills self after being suspended — CBS News
6. SafeSport 'failing' to prevent abuse, 103 athletes say in letter to Congress — USA Today
7. Fixing Olympic sports: Commission weighs in on SafeSport — USA Today
8. Olympic law rewrite calls for public funding for SafeSport and federal grassroots sports office — Associated Press