Highlight 4/2026: SafeSport 2.0: US Reforms and Lessons for International Safeguarding Standards

Keya Pattavi, 2 February 2026

Recent reforms around the U.S. Centre for SafeSport are reshaping debates on how sport systems should protect athletes. Still, they also expose tensions between stronger regulation and fears of bureaucratic overreach. These dynamics matter well beyond the United States because they test emerging global norms on integrity, duty of care and athlete rights within the Olympic movement.

Created in 2017 after high‑profile abuse scandals in U.S. Olympic sports, the Centre for SafeSport was mandated by Congress to independently investigate abuse and misconduct across the Olympic and Paralympic movement. Over eight years, it has developed a central code, centralised reporting, and a national sanction list, but it has also struggled with trust deficits among both survivors and accused parties.

The appointment of Olympic gold medalist Benita Fitzgerald Mosley as CEO in early 2026 is widely framed as an attempt to “reboot” the agency after leadership turmoil and criticism of case handling. Her background as both an athlete and a senior administrator is meant to reconnect the centre with athlete perspectives while stabilizing governance and signaling a new strategic phase.

SafeSport’s recent “2.0” reforms centre on procedural changes: revised codes, clarified outcomes and more trauma‑sensitive case management. The Centre has announced ten operational changes after an eight‑month review, including reworked “administrative closures” and clearer communication of reasons when no sanctions are imposed. There is also a move towards differentiated tracks in cases involving minors, where an “alternative track” can combine education with proportionate responses to low‑level violations instead of automatic punitive measures. Internal training on trauma and timelines seeks to answer long‑standing concerns that investigations were both too slow and insufficiently sensitive to survivors’ experiences.

Despite reforms, a congressionally appointed commission has concluded that SafeSport “has lost the trust of many athletes,” and has recommended structural changes, including shifting funding away from the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee to reduce perceived conflicts of interest.   Athlete groups and some families argue that centralisation has not delivered timely justice, while others claim the Centre’s reach into grassroots sport is too broad and insufficiently accountable.

In parallel, there is mounting pressure from some stakeholders for “deregulation,” framed as reducing case backlogs, limiting jurisdiction and restoring more authority to national governing bodies. This backlash risks weakening the very independence and consistency that made SafeSport a global reference point, illustrating how safeguarding can be politicised when due‑process debates intersect with financial and reputational concerns

The IOC’s own safeguarding guidelines for international federations (IFs) and national Olympic committees (NOCs) emphasise independent reporting channels, minimum policy standards and athlete involvement in policy design. SafeSport’s trajectory both validates and complicates these principles: it shows the value of a centralised, independent body, but also highlights the risks if such an institution lacks perceived fairness, transparency and sustainable funding.

For IFs and NOCs, U.S. reforms underscore three lessons: the need to embed trauma‑sensitive procedures, to ensure genuine independence from performance‑driven structures, and to design appeal and feedback mechanisms that protect both survivors and the accused. At the same time, the U.S. case warns that safeguarding systems must be co‑created with athletes and national bodies, or they may invite deregulation campaigns that undercut global norm‑setting on integrity, duty of care and athlete rights.

Keya Pattavi, Highlight 4/2026: SafeSport 2.0: US Reforms and Lessons for International Safeguarding Standards, 2 February 2026, available at www.meig.ch

The views expressed in the MEIG Highlights are personal to the authors and neither reflect the positions of the MEIG Programme nor those of the University of Geneva.