NAVIGATING THE SAFEGUARDING LANDSCAPE IN SPORT

Ryan Lipes of Global Sports Advocates brings unique dual perspective to safeguarding challenges, having built the U.S. Center for SafeSport from within before defending athletes from without. His insights reveal critical gaps in grassroots education, jurisdictional boundaries, and the delicate balance between protection and due process that defines modern sports integrity.

Executive Summary

In a recent episode of SCI TV’s Sports Conflict Matters, I had the privilege of speaking with Ryan Lipes of Global Sports Advocates, whose career trajectory from Manhattan prosecutor to SafeSport architect to private practice defender offers unparalleled perspective on America’s evolving safeguarding landscape. Ryan’s unique vantage point—having helped build the U.S. Center for SafeSport during its critical early years before transitioning to represent both claimants and respondents—illuminates the complex tensions between protection and process that define modern sports integrity efforts.

The conversation arrives at a pivotal moment. Eight years after the Nassar revelations catalyzed SafeSport’s creation, the system faces both validation of its necessity and criticism of its execution. Recent high-profile cases involving Olympic coaches, the expansion of Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policies (MAAPP), and ongoing debates about jurisdictional boundaries have intensified scrutiny of how American sport protects its most vulnerable participants. Meanwhile, parallel challenges in anti-doping—where Ryan and his colleague Paul Greene have achieved notable victories—reveal similar tensions between regulatory intent and practical implementation.

This analysis examines three critical dimensions of safeguarding evolution: first, the expansion from reactive investigation to proactive prevention; second, the persistent blind spots at grassroots levels and jurisdictional edges; and third, the systemic improvements necessary for sustainable athlete protection. Ryan’s insights, grounded in both prosecutorial rigor and defense advocacy, offer a roadmap for organizations navigating this complex terrain.

Ryan’s account of SafeSport’s genesis corrects a common misconception: Congress didn’t create SafeSport; the U.S. Olympic Committee did, initially as an internal unit before spinning it off in 2017.¹ This organic evolution from within the Olympic movement matters because it reflects recognition by sports leaders themselves that existing structures had failed. The legislative backing that followed—first the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017, then the Empowering Olympic, Paralympic and Amateur Athletes Act of 2020—provided crucial federal authority and teeth that purely contractual arrangements lacked.

The jurisdictional expansion Ryan describes reveals safeguarding’s true scope. While public perception often limits SafeSport to sexual misconduct cases, its mandate encompasses physical abuse, emotional abuse, bullying, hazing, harassment, and critically, failures to report—the systemic enabler that allowed predators like Nassar to operate for decades.² This broader mandate reflects hard-learned lessons: abuse rarely occurs in isolation, and cultures that tolerate boundary violations in one domain often harbor violations in others.

The shift from pure response to prevention represents SafeSport’s most significant evolution. Ryan highlights the development of MAAPP—detailed policies governing adult-minor athlete interactions that address previously unregulated spaces. The texting example proves instructive: rather than waiting for inappropriate communications to cross into misconduct, MAAPP establishes clear boundaries upfront. Group texts are acceptable; one-on-one texts are not. Parents should be copied; private channels should be avoided. These bright-line rules eliminate ambiguity that predators exploit while protecting well-intentioned coaches from false accusations.³

Training evolution parallels policy development. Ryan notes that SafeSport’s educational offerings have become increasingly sophisticated, moving from generic awareness sessions to sport-specific, role-specific modules addressing real scenarios practitioners encounter. This granulation reflects recognition that a swimming coach faces different safeguarding challenges than a gymnastics coach, and that effective prevention requires contextual relevance rather than abstract principles. The integration of bystander intervention training, mandatory reporter obligations, and trauma-informed response protocols creates multiple intervention opportunities before misconduct escalates to abuse.

Case Illustration: The USA Swimming Coaching Offer Withdrawal

Ryan references recent cases where USA Swimming had to withdraw coaching offers after SafeSport investigations came to light post-hiring. These situations highlight the critical importance of comprehensive background checks and disclosure requirements during hiring processes, demonstrating how reputational damage affects both organizations and individuals when safeguarding gaps emerge publicly.

The Grassroots Awareness Crisis

Ryan identifies the most significant safeguarding challenge not at elite levels but at community grassroots programs where, paradoxically, most athletic participation occurs. His observation that many coaches and volunteers don’t even know they’re covered by SafeSport policies reveals a fundamental implementation failure. The swimming team example proves illustrative: parents pay USA Swimming membership fees for competition eligibility without understanding this creates SafeSport jurisdiction over their volunteer coaching activities. This knowledge gap transforms well-meaning community volunteers into inadvertent policy violators, undermining both compliance and legitimacy.⁴

The cultural disconnect between elite and grassroots sport exacerbates this challenge. Elite athletes and coaches operate within highly regulated environments where WADA protocols, selection procedures, and governance structures are routine. Community sport operates differently—informal, relationship-based, often run by parent volunteers juggling multiple responsibilities. Imposing elite-level compliance expectations without corresponding education and support creates resentment rather than buy-in. Ryan’s point that “everyone else at my organization does it” regarding prohibited one-on-one texting reveals how informal norms override formal policies when education fails.

Geographic and socioeconomic factors compound awareness gaps. Well-resourced clubs in major metropolitan areas may have dedicated SafeSport compliance officers and regular training sessions. Rural programs operating on shoestring budgets lack such infrastructure. This disparity creates uneven protection where athletes’ safety depends more on ZIP code than governance structure—a fundamental equity failure that undermines SafeSport’s universal protection mandate.

Jurisdictional Complexity and Dual Roles

The intersection between Olympic and collegiate sport creates particularly complex challenges. Ryan and Paul Greene have highlighted scenarios where coaches hold simultaneous positions with USA Basketball and NCAA institutions, creating jurisdictional ambiguity.⁵ A coach banned by SafeSport for misconduct might remain eligible for NCAA employment absent specific contractual provisions. This loophole doesn’t just undermine athlete protection; it creates legal liability for institutions that knowingly or negligently employ banned individuals.

Ryan’s practical advice—implementing disclosure requirements and contractual termination clauses tied to SafeSport sanctions—offers a partial solution. However, this approach requires sophisticated human resources infrastructure many athletic departments lack. Smaller Division II and III programs, community colleges, and high school athletic departments often operate without dedicated compliance personnel who would flag such issues. The result is a patchwork system where sophisticated actors navigate successfully while under-resourced programs remain vulnerable.

The AAU example I raised during our conversation highlights another jurisdictional gap. Organizations outside Olympic governance face no mandatory SafeSport compliance yet often serve the same athletes and employ the same coaches. This creates safeguarding arbitrage where bad actors can simply shift to unregulated spaces. Ryan’s prediction that market forces will eventually compel universal safeguarding adoption may prove optimistic; without regulatory mandates or liability consequences, voluntary compliance remains sporadic.

Process Delays and Justice Denied

Ryan’s most pointed criticism targets SafeSport’s case processing delays, which he argues “doesn’t work for anybody.” Cases languishing for years harm all parties: victims remain in limbo unable to achieve closure, accused individuals face prolonged reputational damage regardless of ultimate outcomes, and sport organizations operate under clouds of uncertainty.⁶ The contrast with his recent CAS victory for a powerlifter resolved in six weeks highlights what’s possible with appropriate urgency and resources.

These delays reflect deeper structural challenges. SafeSport’s investigative model, borrowed from criminal justice, assumes linear progression from report to investigation to resolution. Sport’s reality is messier: witnesses scatter across competitions, evidence exists across multiple digital platforms, and parallel proceedings in criminal courts or institutional reviews create complexity. Ryan acknowledges that some delay is inherent in complex cases, but his observation that “many, many, many cases seem relatively simple” suggests systemic inefficiency rather than unavoidable complexity drives most delays.

SafeSport Jurisdiction and Coverage Map

Resource Allocation and Efficiency

Ryan’s call for faster case processing requires honest assessment of SafeSport’s resource constraints. With approximately 100 staff managing thousands of annual reports across 50+ sports spanning elite to grassroots levels, simple math reveals the challenge.⁷ Ryan’s suggestion that many cases are “relatively simple” points toward a potential solution: tiered processing systems that fast-track straightforward matters while reserving intensive investigation for complex cases. This approach, common in criminal justice through plea bargaining and diversion programs, could reduce backlogs while maintaining thorough review where necessary.

Technology offers unexploited efficiency opportunities. Artificial intelligence could flag high-risk communications patterns in digital evidence, automated systems could manage routine administrative tasks, and predictive analytics could identify concerning behavioral patterns before escalation to abuse. However, such technological solutions require investment beyond SafeSport’s current budget and expertise outside its traditional investigative competencies. Public-private partnerships with technology companies, similar to those combating online child exploitation, might provide necessary resources and capabilities.

Ryan’s observation that SafeSport provides valuable service to small NGBs by centralizing investigation suggests another efficiency path: regional or sport-specific hubs that maintain specialized expertise while reducing duplication. Swimming investigations require different expertise than equestrian cases; winter sports present different challenges than summer sports. Specialized units could develop deeper competencies while reducing learning curves that delay current investigations.

Coordination Across Ecosystems

The fragmentation between Olympic, collegiate, scholastic, and professional sport creates both protection gaps and inefficiencies. Ryan’s suggestion about contractual provisions linking employment to SafeSport standing represents individual organization solutions to systemic problems. Comprehensive protection requires ecosystem-wide coordination mechanisms that transcend jurisdictional boundaries. The National Center for Safety Initiatives in Sport, announced in 2024, attempts such coordination but lacks enforcement authority or universal participation.⁸

Information sharing presents particular challenges. Privacy laws, litigation concerns, and institutional liability create information silos that enable predator mobility. Ryan’s point about organizations not knowing to check SafeSport’s banned list highlights this gap. Creating secure information-sharing protocols, similar to those used in financial services for anti-money laundering, could enable rapid identification of concerning individuals while protecting privacy and due process rights. Such systems require legal frameworks, technical infrastructure, and cultural change—challenging but not impossible with appropriate leadership and resources.

International coordination adds another dimension. While Ryan’s conversation focused on U.S. systems, athlete protection increasingly requires global cooperation. Coaches and athletes move across borders; misconduct in one country affects athletes in another. The International Olympic Committee’s safeguarding initiatives, various international federation programs, and national efforts like those Ryan discusses need coordination mechanisms that respect sovereignty while ensuring consistent protection standards.

Anti-Doping Parallels and Lessons

Ryan’s anti-doping work with Global Sports Advocates offers instructive parallels for safeguarding evolution. His successful defense of athletes facing contamination charges—including Jaime Munguía’s supplement contamination case—reveals how increased testing sensitivity creates new challenges requiring sophisticated response.⁹ SafeSport faces similar evolution as awareness increases reports of previously unreported conduct, technology enables new forms of misconduct, and social norms shift regarding acceptable behavior.

The burden-shifting framework in anti-doping cases offers both cautionary and instructive lessons. Athletes must prove contamination sources, creating investigative burdens that favor well-resourced athletes who can afford experts like Global Sports Advocates. SafeSport must avoid creating similar disparities where protection depends on respondents’ ability to mount sophisticated defenses. Ryan’s point about early media coverage labeling athletes as “dopers” before investigation parallels premature public judgments in safeguarding cases, suggesting need for careful public communication protocols that protect all parties’ rights.

The whereabouts violation cases Ryan mentions—where non-doping athletes face sanctions for administrative failures—highlight risks of overly rigid compliance systems. SafeSport must balance comprehensive protection with practical recognition of human fallibility and resource constraints. Zero-tolerance approaches that conflate administrative violations with substantive misconduct risk undermining system legitimacy and athlete buy-in, lessons anti-doping learned through painful experience.

Strategic Recommendations for Sports Organizations

Ryan Lipes’ journey from prosecutor to SafeSport architect to private advocate provides unique insight into American sport’s ongoing safeguarding evolution. His dual perspective—understanding both institutional necessities and individual rights—reveals a system that has achieved remarkable progress while facing significant challenges. The expansion from reactive investigation to proactive prevention, the development of comprehensive MAAPP policies, and the creation of centralized reporting mechanisms represent genuine advances in athlete protection.

Yet Ryan’s candid assessment of persistent gaps—grassroots ignorance of coverage, years-long case delays, jurisdictional boundaries that enable predator mobility—demands urgent attention. His magic wand wish for faster case processing isn’t merely about efficiency; it’s about justice for all parties and system legitimacy. When simple cases languish for years, both victims and accused suffer while sport’s reputation erodes. The solutions Ryan suggests—tiered processing, better technology, strategic coordination—are achievable with appropriate resources and leadership commitment.

The parallel challenges in anti-doping that Ryan navigates with Global Sports Advocates offer both warnings and wisdom. Increased detection capabilities create new burdens requiring sophisticated response. Well-intentioned regulations can trap innocent actors through administrative violations. Public rush to judgment damages reputations before investigation establishes facts. These lessons should inform safeguarding evolution to avoid similar pitfalls while maintaining robust protection.

Ultimately, Ryan’s perspective reinforces a fundamental truth: safeguarding isn’t about choosing between athlete protection and due process, but about building systems that deliver both. His work defending both claimants and respondents demonstrates that competent advocacy serves justice regardless of which side one represents. As American sport continues wrestling with safeguarding challenges, Ryan Lipes’ voice—informed by prosecution, defense, and institutional experience—provides essential guidance for creating systems that truly protect while remaining fair to all parties. The path forward requires not just more resources but smarter deployment, not just broader coverage but deeper education, not just faster processing but fairer outcomes. The stakes—athlete safety, sport integrity, and public trust—demand nothing less.

Sources

Note: Interview with Ryan Lipes conducted for SCI TV Sports Conflict Matters (2024). All citations follow Bluebook format.

About the Author

Joshua Gordon, JD, MA serves as Professor of Sports Business & Law at the University of Oregon and Senior Practitioner at the Sports Conflict Institute. Read full bio →

Navigate Safeguarding Challenges with Expert Mediation

Resolve conflicts while maintaining athlete safety and organizational integrity

Related Resources