sport + equality = loose talk

I heard this the other day: “sport has to be run by sport for sport”. Fantastic rhetoric. But what does it mean? Shouldn’t sport be run for society given the amount of government funding it receives? Hasn’t sport got obligations to ensure equality and other public goods? Hasn’t the government got obligations to ensure “full accountability and transparency”. Or is it all talk?

Talk of equality, transparency and accountability in sport is meaningless, it appears to be deluded, a facade in which government funders seek to maintain an air of equality lest they be embarrassed by reality.

I give you this recent example:

Imagine someone – female – highly successful in what she does. She’s turned around how an organisation runs itself – how it identifies and nurtures talent. This brings rewards: prizes from the government, but also offers of new employment in another country. She takes the job but really wants to contribute her expertise to her own country. Nevertheless, she leaves and does a good job, working to develop new coaching and development structures. The new organisation values her and her skills. So, when she has a baby the organisation treats her superbly, as you would expect. Then an opportunity arises to return to home. This is where it starts to go wrong. Back home things aren’t as they seem. The new organisation is well meaning – most of them, but some not. There’s bullying. It continues whilst she is pregnant. People stand by, government officials stand by and do nothing. But she gets on with the job, bringing in much needed investment, new equipment, trying to turn things around. But it’s not until someone from her previous organisation pays a visit that the problems are dealt with…for the time being.

First day back after maternity leave a new boss demands she sign a new contract, signing away pay, rights and working conditions. There is no discussion. It becomes clear that the new boss doesn’t think she should be working there. A ‘re-organisation’ is planned and she is asked to re-apply for her job. The government official whose job it is to keep an eye on the organisation stands by watching, refusing to speak to her: emails, phone calls go unanswered. The interview comes: her experience means the questions are easy to respond to in detail. But it was a set-up: the job goes to the colleague who’d covered her maternity leave. Even he knows his experience is limited and apologises. No thank yous are offered. The government official sat in the interview refuses to provide any feedback, any explanation. The organisation tells her she hadn’t made a significant contribution to its goals.

Meetings with solicitors follow. There’s a clear case of sexual discrimination and wrongful dismissal they say. A tribunal hearing follows. Its very stressful. The judge urges settlement. Eventually one is hammered out but it does no-one much favour: its scant justice seeing your work derided. The organisation agrees to make a statement about the value of her work but changes its mind. They repeat the line that she didn’t make any contribution. They refuse to write a reference. The financial compensation such that is provides no justice. It means that the organisation teeters on the edge of bankruptcy; but for her, it is the end of the line – unless she moves away again, her career is finished. Her career is finished. The government look on and do nothing. There is no going back: she is ignored by former colleagues and friends. There is no enjoyment looking for justice.

A while later a meeting follows. A request to speak to the head of the government organisation that oversees her former employer is granted. She retells her story. The government sympathises: equality is their top priority they say, but won’t intervene in these cases. So much for their commitment to equality. There’s no apology, no punishment for the organisation, just words: we’re hoping this won’t happen again they say. And what about the victim she thinks? Just empty words and hollow promises.

Months later and more news. The organisation is awarded more money by the government. Something of a surprise: how does this fit with commitments to equality? Two new members of staff are appointed. Higher salaries. Males. Discrimination and performance related pay do mix it seems. But maybe this is an ironic apology: its good to know that it takes two men to do the job she did by herself.