Lessons learnt from the top sports crises of 2024
Another year, another series of dramas that brought sport into disrepute.
From governance issues to doping dramas, 2024 will go down as a year when sport faced reputational crises that underline the importance of good planning, good governance and an understanding of how to manage the media when a storm blows.
It’s a reminder of the importance of crisis communications preparation – the insurance to help you navigate not just those crises that you can foresee, but those you can’t.
As we say every year, planning, a code of ethics and transparency can often alleviate many of the reputation-damaging crises we have seen in 2024, but panic and self-preservation often lead to foolish decisions which ultimately do more harm than good.
BILL SWEENEY
Since rugby became a professional sport in the mid-1990s, it has faced some challenges adapting to the world of elite sport.
The international calendar clashes with domestic games, for instance, that resulted in a tug-of-war between clubs and the Rugby Football Union (RFU).
Rugby doesn’t attract the same finances as football, for instance, and the English governing body has got itself into problems over executive pay.
Chief Executive Bill Sweeney has caused an outcry after it was revealed that his salary for the 2023-24 financial year rose to £1.1million.
The RFU reported an operating loss of £37.9m for the same period, the highest it has recorded while Tom Ilube, Chair of the RFU board, sought to justify the increase in executive remuneration.
He said: “During the pandemic, the executive team took deeper and longer salary cuts than the rest of the organisation along with a reduced bonus.
"The long-term incentive plan, put in place post Covid, recognised the material and voluntary reduction in remuneration, despite an exceptional increase in workload while also incentivising the executive team to remain in post to deliver against challenging multi-year targets. The targets included revenue growth, cost control and underlying profit, stretch targets were also in place in relation to other measures including performance and participation."
But with the RFU also making 42 staff redundant in September and grass roots participation in decline, the topics aren’t good.
Three former RFU chairmen then called for Sweeney to step down after doing “enormous and irreparable damage” to the organisation.
Martyn Thomas, Graeme Cattermole and Brian Baister asserted in a letter that the positions of Sweeney and Ilube were “untenable” as the executive director team expenditure rose from £2.8 million last year to £4.9 million.
Reports also suggest that up to 10 members of the RFU senior leadership were handed promotions to become directors.
“The recent RFU announcement of a world record net financial loss to reserves for a sports NGB [national governing body] of £42 million accompanied by large pay increases and bonus payments being made to the Chairman, CEO and other executives, just a month after declaring 42 staff redundancies, has done enormous and irreparable damage to the reputation of the RFU with member clubs, employees and supporters of the game,” read their letter.
“We would respectfully suggest that the positions of the Chairman, CEO and the relevant RFU Board Members are now untenable. We believe a new leadership team is required to chart a new way forward, start the process of rebuilding trust and respect and therefore urge those officers responsible to do the honourable thing.”
The second tier of English rugby is also seeking a vote of no confidence in Sweeney with the 12 RFU Championship clubs requesting a special general meeting (SGM) to debate the leadership of Sweeney and Ilube.
The Championship clubs voted unanimously to add their voices to the demand for a special general meeting, which has also been backed by the Rugby Football Referees’ Union.
England’s 2003 World Cup-winning head coach Sir Clive Woodward described Sweeney’s “unacceptable” pay as “an insult to the wider English rugby public.
The Championship clubs have been engaged in a long-running dispute with the RFU over funding and this season are receiving their lowest ever sum of £133,000 each.
The RFU has sought to defend itself and said in a statement: “The RFU ends this latest four-year cycle with a strong balance sheet, no debt, a robust cash position and positive P&L reserves.
“The RFU has continued to invest strategically in the game at all levels and for the last two years the RFU have been working hard to develop a redesigned Championship with the aim of developing a whole game solution to support the development of England Rugby.
“The objective has been to create a second tier that supports the English rugby system by developing young English talent, whilst supporting the clubs to become financially sustainable by growing local audiences, improving standards, and increasing the value of the league. Significant research has been undertaken and external independent advice sought to underpin the strategy.
“Minimum standards have been proposed along with increased RFU funding and a mechanic for promotion and relegation with tiered capacities for entry into the Premiership and a governance structure to give greater self-determination.”
Learnings
Sports governance is deeply political and can become a distracting sideshow that affects all levels of the game.
Perception is reality when a chief executive and his colleagues are taking higher salaries at a time where redundancies and cost-cutting are being felt by others within the organisation and the game at large.
It’s hard to see how the Chief Executive and his colleagues recover from the growing mood of no confidence after failing to understand the optics in tricky financial times.
PGMOL & DAVID COOTE
Refereeing, from grassroots level to the highest echelons of the game, is beset by criticism with disagreements over decisions a naturally partisan pastime.
But the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL), the English professional football governing body, does not help itself with a strategy and narrative that seems to change according to the circumstances.
When Howard Webb took over in 2022, replacing Mike Riley, he talked about an improvement in standards, particularly in reference to the video assistant referees (VAR).
In stark contrast to Champions League games, where referees appear to let the game flow without fanfare, there is a perception that referees are becoming the main talking point after many of the Premier League’s most high profile games.
A one-sided TV show on Sky Sports which glosses over inconsistencies and makes excuses rather than taking ownership for mistakes has hardly helped.
Never is Webb pushed on why decisions are so inconsistent, even on the same weekend, underlining a lack of scrutiny, preferring chummy appearances on The Overlap instead of grasping the serious problem the PGMOL is facing.
With PGMOL facing financial challenges, there have been reports that the organisation may have to cut its training programmes, which would add to the problems developing a new generation of top referees and improving diversity.
While the quality of refereeing could certainly be improved, raising standards should come not only through investment in training and education, but in accountability for bad performances.
There is a steady stream of ambitious young referees in Select Group 2 and beyond who should be given the opportunities to prove themselves more readily when mistakes occur.
Currently, there is little in the way of meaningful consequence for referees making what can be egregious, season-defining errors, and therefore standards remain mediocre.
Integrity is fundamental in sport at any level, but particularly in high profile elite competition.
The VAR team for Tottenham’s win against Liverpool last season made a major error but when it transpired that they had worked in the UAE the day before, accusations that they were fatigued did little to calm emotions.
The governing body’s reputation suffered another blow late in 2024 when a video emerged of senior referee David Coote appearing to make derogatory remarks about Liverpool and their former manager Jurgen Klopp who he disliked for having a go at him during a match.
Coote was suspended before another video appearing to show him snorting white powder during Euro 2024 in Germany – where he was officiating – was published by The Sun.
Later in November, The Football Association (FA) launched an investigation into allegations that Coote discussed giving a yellow card ahead of a match in 2019.
Coote insisted nothing improper took place and said: “Whatever issues I may have had in my personal life they have never affected my decision-making on the field. I have always held the integrity of the game in the highest regard, refereeing matches impartially and to the best of my ability.”
After an investigation, Coote’s contract was terminated and the PGMOL statement said: "Following the conclusion of a thorough investigation into David Coote's conduct, his employment with PGMOL has been terminated today with immediate effect.
"David Coote's actions were found to be in serious breach of the provisions of his employment contract, with his position deemed untenable.
"Supporting David Coote continues to be important to us and we remain committed to his welfare.”
Coote has a right to appeal the decision to terminate his employment, according to the PGMOL.
Learnings
The PGMOL has a serious reputational problem.
Their dialogue with friendly journalists does nothing to enhance their credibility and attracts criticism as they avoid real scrutiny or a grasp of the issues sub-par refereeing performances attract.
Howard Webb has made no significant improvement to the PGMOL’s reputation, appearing, if anything, to love the limelight without any self-awareness.
The Coote saga further raises questions about the depth of bias within the roster of top flight referees and why more isn’t done to improve culture and performance.
ENHANCED GAMES
Enhanced Games
With the recent backing of PayPal billionaire Peter Thiel and other tech businessmen, it looks like the controversial Enhanced Games has the financial backing to take place in 2025.
The Enhanced Games is a proposed international athletic competition, not unlike the Olympic Games, but with one major difference: they explicitly do not test for Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs). This is not to say that athletes are forced to dope, but rather than doping is perfectly permissible in the eyes of the organisers.
Their stated goal is to see how far humans can go, using a combination of chemical and technological doping; the former including anabolic steroids and hormone therapy, the latter technology like ’super trainers’ and swimsuits based on sharkskin.
The main philosophy of the Enhanced Games is that PED use should be seen as a ‘demonstration of science’ rather than as cheating.
Clearly, there are grey areas when it comes to genetic and competitive advantages, so it could be argued that any and all enhancements should be allowed.
The Enhanced Games also claim to have a vastly improved pay structure compared to the Olympic Games, including a stipend for all athletes that compete, as well as substantial prizes for the most successful – including up to and above $1m for gold medallists.
A 2017 study carried out by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) suggested that as many of half of tested athletes had used PEDs in the last year.
Unsurprisingly, WADA condemned the new Games, calling it “a dangerous and irresponsible concept. WADA warns athletes and support personnel, who wish to participate in clean sport, that if they were to take part in the 'Enhanced Games', they would risk committing anti-doping rule violations under the World Anti-Doping Code,
"Athletes serve as role models and we believe this proposed event would send the wrong signal to young people around the world.”
Travis Tygart, CEO of the US Anti-Doping Agency, described the Enhanced Games as ”farcical… likely illegal in many states” and “a dangerous clown show, not real sport.”
World Athletics President Sebastian Coe was scathing in his assessment and said: "There's only one message and that is if anybody is moronic enough to feel that they want to take part in that, and they are from the traditional, philosophical end of our sport, they'll get banned and they'll get banned for a long time."
One of the Enhanced Games website slogans is: ‘My body, my choice,’ clearly attempting to echo the pro-choice slogans of pro-abortion activists while a further slogan of the Enhanced Games is ‘Science is real,’ echoing pro-vaccination arguments during the Covid Pandemic. These attempts to co-opt major worldwide political issues for the gain of the Enhanced Games organisers and investors is unlikely to improve the organisation’s credibility.
Whether or not they can attract sufficient athletes remains to be seen. At the time of writing, very few have publicly supported the new competition.
D’Souza claimed that 500 ‘sleeper’ athletes had privately agreed to take part, but with the very real safety concerns, the question remains: who will actually benefit from the Enhanced Games?
Learnings
There is so much that the Enhanced Games have got wrong from a communications perspective.
Instead of demonstrating an understanding of the concerns and addressing them in a sensitive way, the approach has been one of aggressive belligerence.
The risks to athlete safety alone will ensure continued widespread condemnation from the sports world and beyond.
And will sponsors or broadcasters want to be associated with such a controversial competition which would potentially undermine their own ethics and ethos?
THE INTERNATIONAL BOXING ASSOCIATION
Gender has become a huge issue in sport as well as society.
Ever since South African middle-distance runner Caster Semenya underwent tests to prove her gender back in 2009, and the LGBTQ+ community has found a voice in mainstream society, there have been questions raised about fairness and eligibility.
The International Boxing Association, (IBA) has had a difficult few years, with concerns over governance and integrity ultimately seeing it removed as boxing’s Olympic governing body by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 2023.
IBA President Russian Umar Kremlev, is said to have strong links to state President Vladimir Putin, there has been concern over the integrity of bouts and judging in a report by sports investigator Richard McLaren which said “corruption abounded” when reporting about IBA’s governance.
So, it’s fair to say that IBA’s credibility continues to be stretched.
Last year, Khelif and fellow boxer Lin Yu-Ting of Taiwan were disqualified from IBA’s World Boxing Championships and at Paris 2024, Khelif, who was born and raised a woman, and does not identify as either transgender or intersex, was caught in a gender storm that overshadowed the boxing competition.
The issue was back in the news during the Paris 2024 boxing competition when Italian Angela Carini broke down in tears and quit her bout against the Algerian Khelif after 46 seconds in a fight that sparked huge controversy.
Carini expressed regret over her actions in the ring. "All this controversy makes me sad," Carini told Italian newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport. "I'm sorry for my opponent, too. If the IOC said she can fight, I respect that decision. It wasn't something I intended to do. Actually, I want to apologise to her and everyone else. I was angry because my Olympics had gone up in smoke."
The IOC made a statement criticising IBA’s governance and later IOC President Thomas Bach confirmed that the boxers were not transgender and that the issues was a politically motivated campaign by Russian interests against the IOC and the Paris Olympics.
He said: “We have two boxers who are born as women, who have been raised as women, who have a passport as a woman and have competed for many years as women. Some want to own a definition of who is a women.
“What we have seen from the Russian side and in particular from the (IBA)…they have undertaken already way before these Games with a defamation campaign against France, against the Games, against the IOC.”
Despite their lack of involvement from Paris 2024, IBA called a press conference to build upon the controversy and explain why they had banned Khelif from their own event last year.
The event was a shambles, with technical issues, while Kremlev used the opportunity to attack the IOC and President Bach again, claiming that he was standing up for women’s sport, despite all the speakers being men.
He said; "Today we are witnessing the death of women's boxing, the corruption of judges. All this is happening while Mr Bach is president (of the IOC). Under no circumstances should we allow women's boxing to be destroyed. Today not only is women's boxing being destroyed, but I believe that in the future they will also try to destroy women's sport.”
Several journalists and other people who were attending left in disgust, at not just the language, but the tone of the answers from the IBA participants.
No wonder the IOC’s Mark Adams responded: “It was a chaotic farce. The organisation and the content of this press conference tells you everything you need to know about their governance and credibility.
"It clearly demonstrates that the sport of boxing needs a new federation to run boxing. If you ever needed any evidence at all that the IBA is unfit to run boxing just look at the key members of the IBA who took part in that travesty yesterday.”
After winning welterweight gold by beating Chinese world champion Yang Liu by a unanimous decision over five rounds, Khelif said: “I am fully qualified to take part in this competition. I’m a woman like any other woman.
"For eight years, this has been my dream, and I'm now the Olympic champion and gold medalist. That also gives my success a special taste because of those attacks.
"We are in the Olympics to perform as athletes, and I hope that we will not see any similar attacks in future Olympics. I was born a woman, I lived a woman, I competed as a woman, there’s no doubt about that. [The detractors] are enemies of success, that is what I call them. And that also gives my success a special taste because of these attacks.”
Learnings
Given their reputation as an organisation, and despite of the facts as laid out by the IOC, what IBA needed to do was show leadership, authority and professionalism.
That would send a message to the world that they are a serious organisation capable of representing the diverse boxing family and acting with integrity.
What transpired was quite the opposite.
The speakers rambled, avoided answering direct questions and there was no coherent messaging to convince the attending media that IBA, and by extension its point of view, was credible.
Not once did any of the speakers show any sympathy for the online bullying and abuse that Khelif has faced.
Nothing is ever off the record with journalists and it was laughable that Roberts then contradicted his President by confirming to media away from the main conference that Russian energy firm Gazprom was still a sponsor and also undermining the validity of the 2023 tests by saying that there was no independent presence when they took place.
One reporter described the event as “the most extraordinary, chaotic, shambolic and badly organised international sporting press conference I have ever attended,” and it was perhaps a fatal blow to IBA’s hopes of regaining Olympic Programme control for boxing.
CHARLOTTE DUJARDIN
There was a time when Charlotte Dujardin was considered the darling of dressage.
She became known as “The Girl on the Dancing Horse” after her partnership with Carl Hester’s horse, Valegro, winning double Olympic gold at London 2012 followed by another gold and silver in Rio four years later, and two bronze medals in Tokyo three years ago.
But the double Olympic champion withdrew from the Paris 2024 Olympic Games after a video emerged of her whipping a horse 24 times during training.
The initial complaint was made by the Dutch equine lawyer Stephan Wensing on behalf of an unnamed client. In an interview with The Times in July, Wensing compared Dujardin’s conduct to “old-style abuse of elephants at the circus”.
Dujardin’s reputation has been in ruins since the video emerged with sponsors withdrawing their support and a global horse welfare charity, Brooke, dropping her as an ambassador.
"Our whole ethos is around kindness and compassion to horses, and to see the opposite of this from someone with such a high profile is beyond disappointing," it said.
Two of Dujardin's sponsors, equestrian insurance company KBIS and Danish equestrian equipment company Equine LTS, have removed their backing while UK Sport also suspended her eligibility for public funding.
Dujardin admitted to being “deeply ashamed” of her actions when the four-year-old video emerged on the eve of the Games.
"What happened was completely out of character and does not reflect how I train my horses or coach my pupils, however there is no excuse.
"I am deeply ashamed and should have set a better example in that moment."
The timing of the video release was questioned, with Madeleine Hill, a former dressage reporter for Horse & Hound magazine, telling the BBC Radio 4 Today programme it felt like "sabotage".
She believes the FEI should have waited until after the Olympics before imposing any sanctions, adding that "top riders are being persecuted" on social media by people who are against the use of horses in sport.
Following an investigation, Dujardin was banned from dressage competition for a year by the International Federation for Equestrian Sports (FEI).
“It is regrettable that this case has put our sport in the headlines for all the wrong reasons, especially during a critical time leading up to the Olympic Games,” FEI Secretary General Sabrina Ibáñez said.
“Yet, despite the challenges, the FEI acted decisively by immediately opening an investigation and imposing a provisional suspension.
“These significant sanctions send a clear message that anyone, regardless of their profile, who engages in conduct that compromises the welfare of the horse will face serious consequences. We believe this outcome reaffirms the FEI’s commitment to equine welfare and to its role as guardian of our equine partners.”
In a statement, Dujardin said she “fully respects” the decision to ban her — and also revealed that she is expecting a baby. “As the federation has recognised, my actions in the video do not reflect who I am and I can only apologise again,” she said. “I understand the responsibility that comes with my position in the sport, and I will forever aim to do better.
“This has undoubtedly been one of the darkest and most difficult periods of my life, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has supported me during this time.
“To those of you who have sent messages, emails and tried to reach me to check in on how I am — thank you. Every kind word truly has made a difference, more than you’ll ever know.
Wensing said his client, the whistleblower, was “happy with the outcome of the case.
“My client is satisfied this sanction sends out a strong message to the whole dressage industry regarding what is a very important issue,” Wensing said.
“The punishment is fair and it’s good that it has finally been concluded. It is also good that Charlotte Dujardin has admitted everything and taken responsibility. My client is happy about that too.”
Whether Dujardin returns to the sport to try to become Britain’s most successful female Olympian at the Los Angeles Olympic Games in 2028 remains to be seen.
Learnings
The sorry episode raises more questions about the welfare of horses and what goes on behind closed doors.
To Dujardin’s credit, at least she didn’t try to make excuses or deny the severity of the incident, she was quick to apologise and has accepted her punishment – but her reputation is forever tarnished.
It’s a reminder that in this age of smartphones, everything you say or do can be filmed – doing the right thing at all times is vital.
DOPING IN TENNIS
Some big names from the world of tennis have been embroiled in doping recently, sending shockwaves through the sport and raising questions about the consistency of testing and punishments.
It’s not that long ago that Maria Sharapova was banned after being found guilty of taking meldonium, a banned substance.
But 2024 has seen more controversy, with Iga Swiatek and Jannik Sinner both testing positive this year.
Five-time Grand Slam champion Swiatek tested positive for the banned substance trimetazidine in August ahead of the Cincinnati Open and the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) announced in November that she had received a one-month suspension after it was decided that she carried “no significant fault or negligence.”
Swiatek said that the substance entered her body due to the contamination of non-prescription medication she had been using for jet lag and sleep issues, and having already served 22 days of her ban in the autumn, she is now free to compete at her next two scheduled events: the United Cup and the Australian Open.
That news came after ATP world No.1 Sinner avoided a ban after twice testing positive for the anabolic steroid clostebol in March 2024, although the Italian is awaiting the outcome of a World Anti-Doping Agency appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Sinner’s explanation was that the banned performance-enhancer entered his system unintentionally through a massage from his physiotherapist, who used a spray containing the steroid to treat his own cut finger.
It’s understandable that Simona Halep was aggrieved after being given a four-year ban in September 2023 after testing positive for the banned blood doping agent roxadustat at the 2022 US Open.
The two-time Grand Slam winner’s ban was later reduced to nine months following her appeal to the CAS, although she said that there were "completely different approaches” to the processes of dealing with the cases.
In an Instagram post, liked by world No 2 Alexander Zverev and other leading players, Halep highlighted the contrast between her own fate – in which a four-year ban was eventually reduced to nine months by the Court of Arbitration for Sport – and the way that Sinner and Swiatek were allowed to play on with barely any interruption.
“I can’t find and I don’t think there can be a logical answer,” wrote Halep, who is 33. “It can only be bad will from ITIA, the organisation that has done absolutely everything to destroy me despite the evidence.”
Halep later added: “What I believe is not fair, either, is that they announced my case straight away, and I got all the heat from the press, and for these two players they kept it secret, and they just said about the case when everything was done, so it’s very weird.”
Swiatek rejected those assertions, saying: “I know that people need to automatically compare such situations to others that have already happened, but the truth is that each of these cases is completely different.
“I think this is a question more for ITIA than for the player. My fate, just like the fates of others, was in their hands and they decide how each case will turn out. I trust that this process is objective, that everything is done according to the regulations and no one judges a player this way or that way because of his position. But whether it is really like that, I think this is a question for ITIA.”
ATP Tour chairman Andrea Gaudenzi acknowledged that there “could have been better communication” in explaining the rules involved in Sinner’s doping case.
“I learned the day before we all learned,” Gaudenzi said. “And to be honest, I’m happy about that. I really thank the ITIA (International Tennis Integrity Agency) and our representatives there for intentionally keeping me and our entire team in the dark because that’s how it should be.
“It should be completely independent and that was agreed by the (parties). It was a shock, but obviously comforted by the evidence afterward.”
A final verdict in the Sinner doping case won’t come until early 2025.
Learnings
The cases of Halep, Swiatek and Sinner have led to questions over the way anti-doping cases are handled and whether players are treated differently.
The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), which handles doping cases, has strenuously denied any differences in the way players are treated.
But the fact that Swiatek’s case was heard in secret and only revealed after the fact does raise concerns about consistency and the need for full transparency when sporting integrity and players’ reputations are at stake.
RAYGUN
The Olympic Games has made great strides to attract a younger audience in recent years with breakdancing, skateboarding and sport climbing attracting younger people and reflecting the diversity of sporting competition.
But Australian breakdancer Rachael Gunn became a figure of fun at the Paris Games, after she broke out a host of unorthodox moves against the world’s best breakdancers, with images of her moving like a kangaroo, a snake and a sprinkler becoming memes.
The 37-year-old Sydney university professor failed to score a single point and was heavily criticised, with parodies of her performance even played out on late-night TV in the US with comedian Rachel Dratch impersonating the Australian during Jimmy Fallon’s monologue to open The Tonight Show.
Online criticism has included allegations that the Oceania qualifying event, held in Sydney last October, was set up to favour Gunn, and it questioned the judging which allowed her to qualify.
Some even asked — or said outright — that it all might have been some type of hoax or research project for Gunn, 36, a full-time university lecturer who researches dance and gender politics and has studied a range of dance styles, according to her Olympics bio.
Gunn ended up posting a response on Instagram where she said that the reaction to her routine was “pretty devastating" and called on the media to "stop harassing my family and friends.”
"I just want to start by thanking all the people who have supported me - I really appreciate the positivity and I'm glad I was able to bring some joy into your lives. That's what I hoped.
"I didn't realise that that would also open the door to so much hate, which has frankly been pretty devastating. While I went out there and I had fun, I did take it very seriously. I worked my butt off preparing for the Olympics. I gave my all - truly.
“I'm honoured to have been a part of the Australian Olympic team and to be part of breaking's [breakdancing's] Olympic debut."
"What I wanted to do was come out here and do something new and different and creative — that's my strength, my creativity," Gunn said, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
"I was never going to beat these girls on what they do best, the dynamic and the power moves, so I wanted to move differently, be artistic and creative because how many chances do you get in a lifetime to do that on an international stage?"
Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) hit out at a "misleading and bullying" petition signed by more than 50,000 which criticised Gunn.
“It amounts to bullying and harassment and is defamatory,” the AOC said of an online petition targeting the dancer and others, adding that the actions “stirred up public hatred without any factual basis. It’s appalling.”
While Gunn didn't win a round in her dance battles, some judges did give her a slight edge in originality, and at least one did so in "vocabulary" — the variety of moves a dancer employs. Those are two of the five criteria used to select winners.
The AOC released a 12-point fact-check to combat the spread of claims against Gunn, saying no athlete should be treated the way she has.
AusBreaking, the national governing body, also debunked the attacks on Gunn — including the widely circulated, but false, allegation that her husband and coach, Samuel Free, had somehow orchestrated her victory in last year's qualifying competitions. The Australian Associated Press agreed with the organisation, in a separate fact-check.
The World DanceSport Federation, breaking's sanctioning group, also issued a statement, saying it stands against harassment and abuse, including cyberbullying.
Learnings
Gunn and the Australian Olympic Committee dealt with the controversy well in the circumstances – and originality is certainly not deserving of criticism.
But knowing that she couldn’t compete with her rivals, Gunn could have made clear in advance of her intention to be creative rather than competitive, to face the situation head-on.
As it is, her performance gave fuel to those who ridiculed breakdancing being part of the Olympic Games Programme rather than underline the value of individual expression.
STEVEN VAN DE VELDE
The Olympic Values were severely tested when it was revealed that beach volleyball player Steven van de Velde had previously been convicted of raping a 12-year-old British girl.
The Dutchman served 13 months in prison which prompted victim support and safeguarding groups to call for him to be banned.
Kate Seary, co-founder and director of Kyniska Advocacy, which works for the protection and respect of women in sports, said: "His participation sends a message to everyone that sporting prowess trumps crime."
Dutch chef de mission Pieter van den Hoogenband said: "He's not going to downplay it [his conviction]. We have to respect that and help him as a member of the team to be able to perform."
In a statement the Dutch Olympic Committee said it had put in place “concrete measures” to ensure a safe sporting environment for all Olympics participants in light of Van de Velde’s participation.
It said Van de Velde had engaged with all requirements and had met stringent risk assessment thresholds, and stated that there is no risk of him reoffending. The Committee said: “Van de Velde has consistently remained transparent about the case which he refers to as the most significant misstep of his life. He deeply regrets the consequences of his actions for those involved. He has been open about the personal transformation he has undergone as a result.”
"Van de Velde has fully engaged with all requirements and has met all the stringent risk assessment thresholds, checks and due diligence. Experts have stated that there is no risk of recidivism.”
It said it “regretted” the “unforeseen renewed attention, on social media in particular, for those struggling with trauma from sexual offences and transgressive behaviour”.
Van de Velde and his playing partner Matthew Immers reached the quarter-finals in Paris with Van de Velde repeatedly subjected to a stream of boos and whistles from the crowd.
The Dutchman, who requested not to stay in the Olympic Village and was allowed to absent himself from post-match mixed zone interviews, admitted that he considered quitting the games before deciding to compete.
He said: "I thought, 'I don't want that. I'm not going to give others the power to decide they can bully me away or get rid of me'.
"If I think about how much I was focused on peripheral matters – with how I want to be on the field instead of with tactics against the opponent – then you can say that that has had an influence, but there is no point in passing the buck."
Van de Velde, who received support from fans of the Netherlands, said he understood the commotion.
"Do you want somebody with a history? Can he stand on the podium? That is a legitimate question to ask," he added.
"I can't change what people think of me. Someone can hold me responsible forever for what happened and that's OK, because that's what it is. It is their right. So, I accept that. I'm not the person I was 10 years ago.
"It has been the biggest mistake of my life."
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) faced calls for an investigation into how the player had been allowed to compete at Paris 2024. In an email seen by the Guardian, a senior official with the Dutch Olympic Committee has insisted that Van de Velde was not a paedophile, in response to a concerned British man who lives in the Netherlands.
The IOC has said that inclusion in competition is a matter for individual nation’s Olympic committees. Asked if the IOC was “comfortable and happy” with Van de Velde’s involvement, its spokesman Mark Adams said: “I think to characterise it as ‘comfortable and happy’ would not be correct.”
He added: “I think a crime occurred some time ago, 10 years ago. A great deal of rehabilitation has taken place, and there’s very strong safeguarding in place also, and I believe … the athlete in question is not even staying in the village.”
Learnings
Should an athlete be prevented from competing because of past transgressions?
Child rape is a serious crime, and Van de Velde’s presence was another unsavoury sideshow for the Olympic Games.
The IOC dealt with the issue superbly, and the comments from the Dutch Olympic Committee were also understanding of the seriousness of the situation.
But it raises questions about whether an athlete with such a heinous past should be permitted to compete – or whether safeguards need to be put in place to ensure the spirit of the Olympic Movement is followed by every competing nation and its athletes.
CANADA WOMEN’S FOOTBALL
Canada's women's football team were caught in a huge controversy during Paris 2024 which stretched the spirit of fair play on which the Olympic Games were founded.
The team was deducted six points from their group and coach Bev Priestman was banned for one year after New Zealand reported to French police that a drone had been flying over their practice sessions.
FIFA announced the sanctions - which include a £175,720 fine for the Canadian Soccer Association (CSA) – a day after Priestman was removed as Canada's Olympic head coach with CSA officials Joseph Lombardi and Jasmine Mander also been suspended for a year.
FIFA said in a statement: “The officials were each found responsible for offensive behaviour and violation of the principles of fair play in connection with the CSA's Women’s representative team's drones usage in the scope of the Olympic football tournament.”
Priestman ‘voluntarily’ withdrew from her coaching role for Canada's opening game against New Zealand after the opponents reported a drone had been flown over their training session.
FIFA and the CSA launched investigations and the latter said the 38-year-old was "highly likely" to have been aware of the incident.
Canadian Olympic Committee chief executive David Shoemaker was shocked by the severity of the punishment, which punished the team despite their lack of involvement in the drone activity.
Shoemaker commented: “We feel terrible for the athletes on the Canadian Women's Olympic Soccer Team who as far as we understand played no role in this matter."
Shoemaker later said there "appears to be information that could tarnish" Canada's women's football triumph from the Tokyo Games amid reports that drones had been used at previous tournaments – and with the men’s team as well.
The consequences were tough on the players, who had prepared for the tournament for years only to be handed a punishment for something they hadn’t been involved in.
Defender Vanessa Gilles told reporters after the New Zealand game that "there was a lot of emotion, frustration and humiliation because as an athlete, it didn't reflect our values and what we want to represent as athletes at the Olympic Games. We are not cheaters."
Ultimately the women’s team crashed out in the quarter-finals to Germany on penalties, but that was far from the end of the controversy.
Former Canada men’s coach John Herdman also became embroiled in the scandal after reports that he had used drones as well and essentially taught Priestman the value of surreptitiously-obtained footage.
He refused to comment citing the "integrity of the investigation.
"I can again clarify that at a FIFA World Cup, pinnacle event, Olympic Games, at a Youth World Cup, those activities have not been undertaken. And I've got nothing else to say on that matter.”
Eventually whistleblowers came forward, telling Radio-Canada they faced "strong pressure" from Canada Soccer's top coaches to take part in the spying.
"'No' wasn't an option," said a former player on the men's national team. "John Herdman put his staff under a lot of pressure. If his assistants refused they were put aside."
Canada Soccer has ended up announcing the results of an independent review and it was telling that Herdman did not find time to be interviewed.
Chief Executive Kevin Blue initiated disciplinary proceedings against Herdman and accepted that there may be a "systemic ethical shortcoming" that needs to be addressed.
He added: "The findings of the independent investigator reveal that the drone incident in Paris was a symptom of a past pattern of an unacceptable culture and insufficient oversight within the national teams.
"We are working to change Canada Soccer into a federation that Canadians trust and are proud of, and one that is not defined by unfortunate actions of the past."
Canada Soccer also initiated disciplinary proceedings against Herdman for "potential violations of the Canada Soccer code of conduct and ethics.”
Learnings
An organisation’s culture is only as good as the people who adhere to it.
Athletes and employees deserve to compete and work without the fear of being tainted by the actions of their leaders.
If staff or athletes are scared of coming forward and voicing concerns, fearful for the consequences of their actions, it provides a perfect opportunity for serious reputational damage if individuals are abusing the system.
Whether Canada Soccer executives knew about the use of drones is open to debate, but the organisation’s ethical failures should prompt systemic changes and clarity of guidelines that are rigorously enforced.
MANCHESTER UNITED
There was a time when Manchester United set the standards by which other clubs were compared.
The era of Sir Alex Ferguson saw the club win 38 titles including 13 Premier Leagues, five FA Cups and two Champions Leagues. Off the field, the club capitalised on the Red Devils’ global profile to accumulate a raft of commercial partnerships which ensured the club remained competitive.
But when Sir Alex retired in 2013, the club encountered an inevitable decline, failing to win the Premier League or the Champions League again and, at last count, giving eight different coaches control of the first team.
United’s demise has coincided with the club’s sale to the Glazer family in 2005, the American family enjoying a honeymoon period purely down to Sir Alex’s brilliance.
Patriarch Malcom Glazer, an American billionaire and owner of the NFL’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers, acquired an initial 2.9% stake in the club in 2003 which he later increased to 15%, before increasing his stake in the club to 75% and ending its status as a publicly listed company, before taking full control in June of 2005.
Glazer was quick to isolate himself from United’s fanbase when it became clear that the deal was primarily funded through loans secured against United’s assets – landing the club in the red by hundreds of millions.
Despite fewer trophies over the past decade, United have secured record breaking sponsorship deals around the globe, with the club propelling its commercial revenue from £44m in 2005 to over £300m in 2023.
According to Deloitte’s Football Money League, they remain among the most commercially viable clubs around, an achievement that largely goes under the radar.
The MUST have described the Glazer’s running of the organisation as “slow and opaque,” and after a prolonged period of negotiation billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe acquired a 27.7% minority stake in the club in February this year for £1.25bn through his company Trawlers Limited, an amusing nod to United’s beloved Eric Cantona.
With his business success through the INEOS company, Sir Jim has already shown his passion for sport, backing the former Team Sky cycling team and backing the British America’s Cup bid as well as Ligue 1 club Nice and one-third of the Mercedes Formula 1 team.
At the time of the purchase, Sir Jim stated: “Whilst the commercial success of the Club has ensured there have always been available funds to win trophies at the highest level, this potential has not been fully unlocked in recent times.
“We will bring the global knowledge, expertise and talent from the wider INEOS Sport group to help drive further improvement at the Club, while also providing funds intended to enable future investment into Old Trafford.
“We are here for the long term and recognise that a lot of challenges and hard work lie ahead, which we will approach with rigour, professionalism and passion.”
The Ratcliffe reign has being littered with mishaps and embarrassments, though.
A quick win was to announce among his initial reforms that he would instigate a three-year freeze on dividend payments, bucking the controversial trend set by the Glazers.
A central part of this journey, says Sir Jim, is investing in the right people to ensure success can flourish, leading to changes in the club’s leadership team including the inclusion of Dave Brailsford, the director of sport at INEOS. But it hasn’t gone smoothly.
An audit of United staff and the club’s facilities led to some clumsy communications that further underline the need for expert PR support.
In late April, Ratcliffe made the decision to cut staff perks as part of his money-saving measures ahead of the men’s FA Cup final. A company-wide email outlined that while staff would be given a free ticket to the final, employees would have to pay for their own travel to and from the stadium.
Other perks such as the pre-match party, hotel accommodation and the ability for employees to bring friends and family to the match were also scrapped.
The i Columnist Kevin Garside wrote: “Almost six months since his Christmas Eve declaration of purchase, Ratcliffe’s motive is revealed for what it always was, a business opportunity aimed at deriving value from a fading asset even more than the hated Glazer regime he diluted.” It’s hard to disagree.
In early May, after a tour of the Trafford Training Centre, Ratcliffe sent another email to staff condemning the state of the training ground: “I had a good tour around some of the facilities. I am afraid I was struck in many places by a high degree of untidiness. In particular the IT department which frankly was a disgrace and the dressing rooms of the U18 and U21 were not much better. These standards would not come close to what we would expect at INEOS and we are a chemical company.”
Sir Jim also cited email traffic statistics to Manchester United staff as the basis for a ban on working from home and told them to seek “alternative employment” if they are not willing to come to club premises.
Sir Jim made his edict despite United’s lack of sufficient office space and some consultants on contracts whose terms do not require them to be in the club’s Manchester or London business complexes.
He later offered early administrative employees an annual bonus if they resigned by June 5 in a further attempt to trim the workforce.
According to the Sun, these communiques turned the atmosphere at the Carrington training centre ‘toxic,’ although it is understandable that Sir Jim wants to get the basics right and fix United’s organisational challenges.
When the staff £100 Christmas bonus was replaced with a £40 store voucher, it did little to raise morale – which will certainly not provide huge spending benefits and will almost certainly impact internal and media goodwill.
Shortly after these disciplinary measures, Ratcliffe attended United’s Premier League clash against Arsenal instead of the women’s FA Cup final at Wembley, when United’s women’s team won 4-0 against Tottenham to earn their first major trophy.
It didn’t help that more recently Ratcliffe dismissed any hint of focus on the Women’s team, saying: “There’s only so much you can do and our focus has been on the men’s team. If not, you get spread too thinly. We need to sort out the main issue, the men’s team.”
Such apathy is hardly going to raise morale among the women’s teams at Old Trafford and could have been handled with more diplomacy.
The regeneration of Old Trafford is a pressing issue with its leaky roof again attracting attention towards the end of United’s 1-0 defeat to the Gunners, that saw 41mm of water cascade through the roof, later dubbed the ‘Old Trafford waterfall.’
Ratcliffe made his plans for Old Trafford clear from the start, with a vision to create the ‘Wembley of the North’ and provide a stadium that the club can be proud of.
As Ratcliffe formed his new executive team, former Manchester City Commercial Director and Chief Football Operations Officer Omar Berrada was appointed as the new Chief Executive of the club in January as a precursor to Sir Jim’s official arrival the following month.
Berrada has an extensive background in football, particularly when it comes to player contracts and transfers, which will be crucial for United in the coming months and years.
The appointment of sporting director Dan Ashworth was controversial, especially after details of his covert email negotiations with Berrada were discovered, highlighting the fact that Ashworth was being tapped up, breaching Premier League guidelines and confidentiality agreements.
Ashworth did not recommend Ruben Amorim, who replaced Erik ten Hag just months after the Dutchman was handed a new contract.
Five months after he finally started work, Ashworth left Old Trafford, with reports suggesting that Ratcliffe was pivotal to the call to part ways, amid concerns that Ashworth’s performance had not met expectations.
Ratcliffe has come under fire from United fans for scrapping concessions of what the club says are the 3% of tickets that remain unsold for Premier League matches and introducing a minimum price of £66.
However, speaking to the respected 'United We Stand' fanzine, external, Ratcliffe says the move is aimed at trying to make United better.
Labelling the Red Devils as “mediocre”, Ratcliffe admitted that ticket prices had to rise.
Ratcliffe said it had to be done, even though he accepts many match-going supporters are from working class parts of Manchester and do not have huge amounts of disposable income.
"I understand that," he said. "I was brought up on a council estate in Manchester. "I don't want to end up in a position where the genuine local fans can't afford to come but I do want to optimise the ticketing.
"We need to find a balance - and you can't be popular all the time either. Here, we are talking about 3% of the tickets. I don't think it makes sense for a Manchester United ticket to cost less than a ticket to see Fulham."
Learnings
A club of United’s size will always receive significant media attention, so every mis-step has been pored over with results as indifferent to some of Sir Jim’s early initiatives.
These drastic measures demonstrate an unwavering commitment to getting Manchester United back on track in the long-term, and any attempt to instil a degree of vigour should be welcomed with open arms.
But it’s also a reminder that senior leaders, however successful they have been in their professional lives, would do well to work closely with their communications teams. Unlike his stated ambition, communication has not been consistently friendly and supportive.
So often we see that the best intentions, clumsily delivered, can do more harm than good that undermines credibility, trust and the support of those key audiences that leaders seek to engage.