It Is a Team Game: Safeguarding Leads’ Experiences of Implementation Within Football Member Associations

Abstract

Interpersonal violence is now widely acknowledged as a key concern throughout sport. In response, governing bodies have started to introduce safeguarding strategies. One such example is the FIFA Guardians programme, which aims to introduce stronger safeguarding measures throughout global football. The programme includes nominated learners from FIFA’s 211 Member Associations completing the FIFA Guardians Safeguarding in Football Diploma. There is a need to capture the experiences of people who are engaged in such initiatives. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the factors that shape the experiences of the Nominated FIFA Learners whose role is to implement safeguarding across their Member Association. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews (n = 40) across all six football confederation regions. Reflexive thematic analysis revealed six themes: enforcing rules and regulations, supporting relationships, tailoring the message, promoting safeguarding awareness, structuring the institutional setting, and acknowledging the context. Results also highlighted the interactive nature of the factors influencing safeguarding implementation at the Member Association level and the importance of alignment between the factors. The salience of these factors combines to create an environment within which safeguarding leads feel they can be more impactful. As such, there is a need for a multi-faceted approach, supported by a strategic alignment of these factors, so that everyone can play their part in ensuring that the safeguarding lead is a key member of an effective team.

1. Introduction

A recent IOC consensus statement on interpersonal violence in sport evidenced the range of related issues which need to be addressed (Tuakli-Wosornu et al. 2024). These include sexual abuse, physical abuse, psychological abuse, neglect, bullying and hazing (Tuakli-Wosornu et al. 2024). Such issues are salient across all sports, including football. For example, RayatSarokolaei et al. (2022) found that 37% of semi-professional adolescent male football players in Mazandaran province experienced emotional abuse, which resulted in outcomes such as depression, eating disorders, anxiety, and low self-esteem. Monk (2023) raised concerns by fifteen grassroots players in a UK County Football Association in relation to angry parents, bullying, and racist abuse. Further research has investigated maltreatment in professional football (Newman and Rumbold 2024); whistleblowing of bullying in professional football (Newman et al. 2022); abuse, intimidation, and violence as aspects of managerial control in professional football (Kelly and Waddington 2006); and banter and bullying in community football (Booth et al. 2024). There have also been a series of high-profile cases, such as those outlined in the Sheldon Report (Sheldon 2021) as well as cases in Haiti (Dunbar 2021), Canada (Davidson 2022), Argentina (Henao 2018) and Germany (Nestler 2024). All of this evidence, when combined, illustrates the need for safeguarding in football.

Safeguarding is an all-encompassing proactive initiative shifting from traditional child protection to a more multi-stranded approach to keep children and vulnerable adults safe from harm and abuse (Hedges 2015). The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has defined safeguarding as

“All proactive measures to both prevent and appropriately respond to concerns related to harassment and abuse in sport as well as the promotion of holistic approaches to athlete welfare.”

(Tuakli-Wosornu et al. 2024, p. 1323)

Sports organisations have started to develop a range of safeguarding initiatives to address the prevalence of interpersonal violence. The International Safeguards for Children in Sport provided the first framework to guide the development and implementation of safeguarding within sports organisations. (Mountjoy et al. 2015; Rhind and Owusu-Sekyere 2020). The eight safeguards are: developing your policy; procedures for responding to safeguarding concerns; advice and support; minimising risks to children; guidelines for behaviour; recruiting, training, and communicating; working with partners; and monitoring and evaluating. The safeguards were informed by a review of the extant literature, including empirical evidence, policies, and existing local or national programs (Brackenridge et al. 2012). However, these International Safeguards were developed on experiences from the Global North, with a lack of evidence from the Global South (Rhind et al. 2015). These International Safeguards have provided the foundations upon which governing bodies have built their safeguarding systems. One such example is provided by football.

The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the international football governing body, launched the FIFA Guardians programme initiative in 2019. It provides a safeguarding framework to support its 211 Member Associations (MAs) in line with Article 3 of the FIFA (2024) Statutes and Article 24 of the FIFA (2023) Code of Ethics. As part of this, FIFA invited all MAs to appoint their Lead or designated Safeguarding Officer to engage with the education programme pathway. These learners completed the FIFA Guardians Safeguarding in Football Diploma, which involves 72 h of online learning, written assignments, attendance at webinars and a residential workshop on case management, which is funded by FIFA. Learning outcomes cover defining safeguarding and identifying risk, safeguarding responsibilities and policies, developing safeguarding effectiveness, embedding safeguarding practice and promoting wider safeguarding change. Learners are provided with supplementary resources, including the FIFA Guardians toolkit, which contains guiding principles and minimum requirements on child safeguarding for all members. The aim is to professionalize the role of Safeguarding Leads across FIFA’s 211 MAs with a shared understanding of safeguarding to practice in their MAs.

With such importance placed on the safeguarding initiatives from leading sports organisations, it is crucial to capture the experiences of those implementing these initiatives globally. This can provide an evidence base to inform future safeguarding developments, both within and beyond football (Rhind et al. 2017). The sport sector needs further evidence to inform the harmonisation of support at national and international levels and to enable consensus on effective practice (Wessells 2009, 2015).

There is minimal research examining the experiences of implementing safeguarding initiatives. In one of the few related studies, Hartill and Lang (2014) explored the challenges faced by Safeguarding Lead Officers in the UK when implementing national child protection standards for sports organisations. A range of challenges were identified, including priorities, resources and responsibilities; organisational resistance/inertia; complex and specialist roles; and constructions of safeguarding and child protection in sport. Hartill and Lang called for sports organisations to demonstrate greater investment to provide a meaningful safeguarding agenda that moved beyond minimum operating standards. However, while this study helped clarify the relationship between officers and their sport, one limitation is that the research was only based on nine interviews from eight UK National Governing Bodies.

More recently, Rhind et al. (2017) explored the experiences of people within 32 sports organisations working towards implementing the International Safeguards. Thematic analysis revealed a range of factors which either represented barriers or facilitators to implementation. These were labelled the eight CHILDREN pillars: Cultural sensitivity (e.g., adapting the approach to the given context), Holistic (e.g., embedding the approach across the organisation), Incentives (e.g., being clear on why safeguarding is important), Leadership (e.g., having support from senior leaders in the organisation), Dynamic (e.g., adopting an approach which is flexible to changing circumstances), Resources (e.g., financial, human and supporting resources), Engagement (e.g., engaging staff) and Networks (e.g., working with others in the community). Given the acknowledgement by Rhind et al. (2017) of the interactive nature between a safeguarding system and the given context, it seems pertinent to examine the experiences of safeguarding in specific sports. Thus, this study explores the factors influencing safeguarding initiatives in football.

Building on the CHILDREN pillars, Owusu-Sekyere et al. (2022) proposed the Safeguarding Culture Model. The model suggests that the culture within an organisation is shaped by three interacting factors: the Safety Management System (SMS; e.g., policy, training etc.), Stakeholder Engagement (e.g., the extent to which staff, players and coaches etc. are engaged with safeguarding related activities), and Leadership Commitment (e.g., the extent to which leaders throughout the organisation are supportive of safeguarding such as through resource allocation or strategic priority). Leadership commitment can directly influence stakeholder engagement, stakeholder engagement may influence the development and nature of the SMS, and the SMS can impact the level and nature of the leaders’ commitment and stakeholder engagement. This illustrates the reciprocal relationships between these factors, which shape the nature of the salient safeguarding culture. The model proposes that these factors are all influenced by the context (e.g., both the internal context of the organisation as well as the external social, political and legislative context).

The model draws on the Socio-Cognitive Theory (Bandura 1986) in which the culture is reflected in the dynamic reciprocal relationships among individual attitudes and perceptions about the operationalisation of organisational goals; individuals’ goal-directed behaviour; and the organisation’s systems to support the goal-directed behaviour. The bi-directional influence means that a person’s behaviour is as much a function of the situation as the situation is a function of the person (Bowers 1973). For example, in safeguarding culture, the set-up of the SMS may exert influence (different strength and dynamicity) on an individual’s safeguarding behaviour and attitude, and vice versa. The model is consistent with other research on safeguarding in sport, which has discussed the interaction between individual, interpersonal, and systemic elements. Examples include influences of socio-cultural contexts such as performance success, behavioural parameters, and organisational missions (Brackenridge and Rhind 2014); children’s voices in sport affected by attitudes, practice and opportunities (Everley 2020); and abuse in sport perpetuated by valorization, victim silencing and internal discipline (Nite and Nauright 2020). The Safeguarding Culture Model thus provides a framework within which people’s experiences of an organisation’s culture can be explored and interpreted.

The present study addresses the call for a stronger evidence base of how safeguarding applications can be maximised. Secondly, it also builds upon the existing literature through actively engaging with a large, diverse sample with a particular emphasis on including experiences of Safeguarding Leads from the Global South. Thirdly, this research is focused on a single sport to facilitate an understanding of how a safeguarding strategy can effectively be rolled out. To date, there is no research exploring safeguarding initiatives focused on the experiences of leads within the FIFA Guardians initiative. Finally, capturing the experiences of these pioneers can inform recommendations to FIFA’s 211 Member Associations, the six Confederations and FIFA. These can then inform efforts to improve the experiences and effectiveness of both the current cohort of learners as well as future cohorts who undertake the FIFA Guardians Safeguarding in Football Diploma. The insights could also help other sports in the development and implementation of similar programmes to build safeguarding capacity. The aim of the study was therefore ‘What factors shape the experiences of FIFA Safeguarding Leads in implementing the FIFA Guardians programme within their Member Associations?’

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

The study followed an interpretivist paradigm, which enables consideration of reality to be different factors based on the participants’ experiences (Allharahsheh and Pius 2020). The interpretivist paradigm uses predominantly qualitative methods (e.g., Willis 2007). Willis (2007) emphasised the need for detailed reports for interpretivists to fully understand contexts and how these can be gained using qualitative approaches. The qualitative approach used was semi-structured interviews since they generate descriptive information detailing the interviewees’ perspective on the research area (Ritchie et al. 2013). Semi-structured interviews are a midpoint between structured (which could restrict discussion and aspects of their experiences; Dale 1996) and unstructured interviews (which could result in a loss of focus). Thus, eliciting the participant’s opinions and ensuring responses obtained are as consistent as possible in terms of depth and complexity (Patton 1990).

2.2. Participants

A total of 110 Nominated FIFA Learners (Safeguarding Leads) participated in the first cohort of the FIFA Guardians Safeguarding in Football Diploma in Sport. Of these, forty participants (36%) were purposively sampled to gather data from all of the six regional Confederations. This was to ensure that safeguarding application experiences were captured across the world. Specifically, learners came from Africa (Confederation of African Football, n = 12), North and Central America (Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football, n = 9), Asia (Asian Football Confederation, n = 9), Europe (Union of European Football Associations, n = 6), South America (South American Football Confederation, CONMEBOL, n = 2) and Oceania (Oceania Football Confederation, n = 2).

The sample consisted of 24 male and 16 female participants who held various roles within their MAs, but all had a key role related to safeguarding. Participants also had a range of other roles from president, senior counsel, committee members, board of governors, managers (safeguarding, communications, grassroots, league, project, sports development, integrity, social responsibility), general secretary/general secretary assistant, technical director/assistant, heads of departments (internal relations, child safety and welfare, youth football), women’s football coordinator, officers (safeguarding, competitions, development, national executive), national coach, to football legend. Further demographic information is withheld to protect the anonymity of the participants and their MAs.

2.3. Procedure

After gaining institutional ethics approval (14321), the first and last author attended a session of the FIFA Guardians diploma to outline the nature and purpose of the study. An email was then sent to all participants (n = 110) registered on the first iteration of the diploma course with an invitation to participate in a semi-structured interview. Included in the invitation were the information sheet and consent form formatted in English, Spanish or French (as relevant), which were the three languages used in the diploma. Informed consent was sought from the participants prior to the interviews being arranged. Participants who were interested in taking part replied via email, stating suitable dates/times for the interview and their preferred language. A Microsoft Teams Link email was then sent for the agreed date and time. Microsoft Teams offered the most accessible software to participants. Interviews were undertaken in English, Spanish or French by a native speaking member of the research team. Interviews lasted on average 40 min (ranging from 20 min to 75 min).

2.4. Interview Guide

The interview guide was developed by the research team based on previous research (e.g., Rhind and Owusu-Sekyere 2020). A pilot interview was conducted with an individual working within football who provided feedback on flow and clarity. The interview began with introductory questions regarding the learner’s role within football. This enabled the participant to facilitate descriptive talking and to build a rapport with the researcher (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009). The second section focused on their experiences implementing safeguarding as a learner (e.g., successes, challenges, and support needed). Example questions included ‘What challenges have you faced as an individual?’ The third section focused on their perceptions of implementing safeguarding within their MA (e.g., successes, challenges, and support needed). Example questions included ‘What challenges has your organisation faced?’. Probes were also used to explore participant descriptions further (e.g., ‘Could you describe this further?’ ‘How are you finding that?’). At the end of the interview, participants were asked if they had any other comments regarding safeguarding implementation in their role or organisation, and were thanked for their time. The full interview guide is available from the lead author upon request.

2.5. Data Analysis

Interviews were recorded and transcribed using Microsoft Teams. Transcripts were auto-generated and then manually checked by the interviewers to confirm that the data were transcribed verbatim. The transcriptions in French and Spanish were translated into English by the bilingual researchers who conducted those interviews to minimise loss of meaning. Data was stored in line with General Data Protection Regulations.

The interview data were analysed using thematic analysis according to the guidelines provided by Braun and Clarke (2019). This analytical approach is commonly used within qualitative research (Vaismoradi et al. 2013). Thematic analysis suited the methodology as it highlights the researchers’ active roles in knowledge production and is appropriate to use under qualitative paradigms (Braun and Clarke 2019).

Firstly, all transcripts were read and re-read to increase familiarity with the data; individual meaning units were selected from transcripts and were grouped into initial codes by the first and last author. Two coders worked in a reflexive manner, aiming to achieve richer interpretations of meaning through discussions. This allowed the labelling and organisation of data and identifying the meaning of and relationships between codes. The codes were inductively analysed to identify sub-themes with no use of coding frameworks (Braun and Clarke 2021). Data were then reviewed and cross-checked to determine the label of each sub-theme around a relative core commonality. Sub-themes were then generated into themes. In keeping with the inductive approach, the semantic approach was best suited to identify themes based on the explicit meanings of data and not beyond what a participant has said (Braun and Clarke 2006). The semantic strategy focuses on the participants’ explicit language, illuminating their perspectives and allowing the analysis to uncover insights that align with participants’ experiences appropriate to an interpretivist approach. Any refining or defining of themes also continued throughout the analysis process through interpretive discussions. Existing model frameworks (e.g., the Safeguarding Culture Model) were used as interpretive lenses to discuss the findings after data analysis.

Qualitative methodology places emphasis on the researcher as part of the research process and integral to the construct (Ritchie et al. 2013). To ensure academic rigour, the researchers acknowledged and reflected on their own effects within the research process. For example, the researchers’ positionality included reflexivity on their personal position, researchers’ position about the participants, research context and the influence of these positions (Holmes 2020). The broader research team (all authors) held regular meetings to link personal reflexivity to the analysis and mitigate against these.

Strategies were employed to enhance the trustworthiness of this process. These included familiarity with the environment and peer debriefing. As a whole, the research team (all authors) has extensive experience working within football environments and safeguarding in sports settings. Authors 1, 4 and 6, who conducted the interviews, had prior experience using this method, knowledge of safeguarding in sport, and were fluent in the language of the interviewee, which enabled a rapport, trust, and understanding with the participants. Throughout the interview process, these authors engaged in a continual internal dialogue to reflect on their position to allow the participant to drive the direction of the interview. The project was managed by the last author, who has extensive experience in conducting and leading research related to safeguarding in sport. The first author has a PhD related to football academies and has worked in football and on a number of research projects focused on football. This provided an understanding of the context influencing the data in developing a wider understanding of the participants’ experiences (Downe-Wamboldt 1992), aiding familiarisation of the data during the analysis process. Peer debriefing of the research team guided and challenged the methods and interpretations of data during the research process (see Lincoln and Guba 1985). Furthermore, a presentation was delivered at an in-person FIFA Guardians diploma event regarding the initial interpretations of the results. These were then discussed by the participants in small groups at the event before feedback was provided (Holloway and Brown 2012). This process helped to reflect on the analysis and offer additional insights into the interpretations of the results.

3. Results

Six key factors emerged which participants highlighted as shaping their experiences of implementing safeguarding within their MA. The presence of these factors was perceived to facilitate progress, whilst their absence represented a barrier to progress (see Table 1). It is important to note that the factors were manifested in different ways within the various contexts in which the participants were working. The factors will be specific to each Safeguarding Lead, and so examples are provided to illustrate how the given factor was perceived to have facilitated or represented a barrier to the implementation of safeguarding within the MA.

Table 1. Influencing factors identified by Safeguarding Leads when implementing safeguarding.

First-Order Theme	Second-Order Themes
Enforcing Rules and Regulations	Policies
	Procedures
	Registration
	Monitoring of documentation
Supporting Relationships	Leadership support
	Resources
	Collaboration
Tailoring the Message	Safeguarding education
	Information content
	Communication skills
Promoting Safeguarding Awareness	Perception
	Acceptance
	Understanding
Structuring the Institutional Setting	Organisational set-up
	Safeguarding department
	Safeguarding personnel
	Roles and responsibilities
Acknowledging the Context	Country size
	Technology access
	Cultural norms

3.1. Enforcing Rules and Regulations

Safeguarding Leads cited the importance of having policies, procedures (e.g., case management, report system, coach license), registration records (e.g., registration of players, coaches, and clubs), and the monitoring of adherence to these documents as helpful for safeguarding practice in their MA.

Safeguarding Leads perceived that having a safeguarding policy helps frame and regulate practice within MAs, as highlighted below:

“As much as people are educated, if you’ve got no policy that actually regulates, if I don’t have a legal document that binds an association into safeguarding, it does not give me the right to actually enforce or force the members and Member Association to put this thing into place.”

This example demonstrates an inability for the Safeguarding Lead to enforce and monitor the policy because of the lack of support from leadership to endorse the policy. The interactive nature between having these policies and procedures in place and the endorsement of these documents by leadership was highlighted.

Safeguarding procedures, such as case management, allowed Safeguarding Leads to manage concerns appropriately, and for people to trust the MA in dealing with safeguarding concerns. For example, one learner explained:

“Yeah, I think the most important thing is how we are going to respond to these concerns. The moment we raise awareness, we educate people, and we are not reacting in terms of how we are going to respond, it’s going to be difficult. In terms of the structures that are supposed to help me, no, I think that there is none. We need to make sure that we do things right, if people raise concerns or disclose and we don’t act on them, they will not trust us.”

Not having a registration of stakeholders affiliated to the Member Association can be problematic in establishing where the safeguarding concerns occur, as detailed below:

“We don’t know who all of our clubs are because our membership is at a larger level, and we also don’t register every player and every coach and every administrator. So, when we get reports, it’s sometimes difficult to know where they are or who they are. So that makes it a bit challenging as well.”

The lack of a clear monitoring system to oversee safeguarding documentation (e.g., policy, procedures, code of conduct, background checks) was often cited as a key barrier to implementation. Leads explained how monitoring these documents would identify if these documents were in place and adhered to. The challenge is how to ensure that these policies, procedures, and records are applied within all football organisations, from Confederations to grassroots football clubs. It was suggested that an accountable person(s) should be responsible for the monitoring of documentation to assess the extent to which it is being followed. The lack of monitoring of safeguarding education and the lack of safeguarding procedures protecting players from coaches are highlighted:

“So, like from my talking with coaches and [Country], it has been a stipulation (safeguarding training) put for coaches, but still some coaches have not done it and there’s no follow up. There’s no records in that sense. So, because how it works here, if somebody wants to bring somebody along to coach, they just bring them, and they don’t have a set criteria by the association. I know that for a fact but how that is enforced is very, very how should I say it’s something was not easily enforced because anybody from off the street is allowed to interact with players.”

3.2. Supporting Relationships

The extent to which Safeguarding Leads were supported, with respect to leadership support, resources, and collaboration, was perceived to have shaped their safeguarding experiences. Multiple Safeguarding Leads discussed the importance of being supported by leaders at all levels. Learners highlighted the clear benefits of having strong support from senior leaders within FIFA. This can help to overcome resistance to safeguarding implementation from some MAs:

“FIFA, through this initiative, have shown real leadership on safeguarding. From the President and Board, they have emphasised the importance of safeguarding. This has been really useful for us in advocating and setting up our safeguarding programme in our MA.”

Several Safeguarding Leads highlighted the importance of MA leadership commitment in order to progress their safeguarding implementation. This can be manifested in the extent to which leaders within the MA are supportive of safeguarding practices such as strategies and endorsing policies. One learner described their experience of this challenge:

“It’s one of the challenging things, but it’s our own, the very high level, working with it. But the most challenging thing is that to get them to read the papers, you need to know that there’s something happening. You need to start your first step. Till now I’ve been trying to start the first step officially, but it’s not working because there’s no response. There’s no attention to it. So, you can do it as an individual if you’re responsible for some kind of a program or activity. Then you can start it, but on the official level reaching out for everyone. No, not yet.”

Support in terms of funding and resources was an important factor highlighted by several Safeguarding Leads to aid safeguarding practice. A lack of funding and resources was suggested as a hinderance to implementing further safeguarding practice such as safeguarding education and evaluation. In some instances, funds are not available or directed to other departments within the MA, as a learner indicated:

“We’re working in third world countries. There is this issue of we don’t have enough funds… I am not a full-time safeguarding officer and the other [person] that is doing safeguarding is also Personal Assistant to the Chief Executive Officer, there was the issue of the budget, like we don’t have the budget.”

Collaboration with external organisations was cited by several Safeguarding Leads as a factor that can influence safeguarding practice. External organisations including other sports organisations, local authorities, institutions, and government were seen as important to aid this implementation. A learner explained how the use of external organisations influenced their practice for the better:

“When I became the Safeguarding Officer I was responsible for establishing safeguarding policies, guidelines, and procedures. As part of this, and through the guidance on the course, I established partnerships with other authorities, NGOs, and other institutions which really helped us make progress.”

Learners provided specific examples in which collaboration could provide expertise, including organisations assisting in establishing and approving policy, developing education and dealing with safeguarding reports within the case management system. An example of a Safeguarding Lead collaborating to create a policy is discussed below:

“We started talking to different sports associations in the country who had a child safeguarding policy in place. We started picking up different ideas on topics such as reporting. We wanted to ensure that there was a sense of unity and uniformity, so this was not just about creating safe football but part of creating safer sport in our country.”

3.3. Tailoring the Message

Safeguarding Leads discussed how their experiences were shaped by the different ways of communicating safeguarding within football. The communication of safeguarding football across the MA was influenced by safeguarding education, information content and communication skills. Safeguarding Leads felt that providing safeguarding education to key stakeholders helped to improve their awareness of safeguarding. There is an assumption that improved safeguarding knowledge amongst stakeholders will subsequently change their behaviours to be more aligned with safe sport. However, within certain MAs there are no safeguarding education courses. This represents a key challenge in terms of how to provide safeguarding education to stakeholders for these Safeguarding Leads:

“We don’t have formal courses in [Country] in safeguarding. I think there are a lot of courses in the UK, especially for different levels of safeguarding, so we don’t have that.”

Furthermore, when safeguarding training does exist, several Safeguarding Leads have identified a barrier in further education training, which is how to provide a sustainable internal training programme. For example, training the designated Safeguarding Lead of the MA could then train safeguarding officers for competitions, academies, grassroots etc. Inserting this training allows more designated safeguarding officers to be trained. As one learner highlighted:

“It will make you understand almost the biggest challenge that we got was only for training because now we are not trained as instructors.”

Communicating safeguarding content in the form of tailoring messages to different groups was discussed to promote safeguarding understanding. For example, some Safeguarding Leads reported translating the content into different languages to reach different communities. One Lead explained:

“The FIFA toolkit is great. We translated it into our language. We then made a course which is delivered to our coaches and referees.”

Training was also viewed as more impactful (e.g., could be applied) when it was specifically tailored to football as opposed to being generic:

“We created with external stakeholders our first training for the coaches and clubs. Then we started to design this course step by step, more football specific. It started out generic for all sports and we realised that we needed a football specific version.”

Using a child-centred focus was viewed as essential when engaging children. The approach used communication that was easy to understand and fun for children. Keeping the children at the forefront when delivering safeguarding messages was seen to be important for understanding and acceptance, as evidenced below:

“When we are invited to tournaments to do the safeguarding talks with children, we are teaching safeguarding to the children, but it is in a more playful way. The kids are enjoying the session, and they don’t see it as them being educated about safeguarding. We make it clear and simple for them, and they say, ‘Ok. So, I can tell people how I feel’.”

Utilising existing opportunities to communicate with stakeholders about safeguarding was reported by some to be an effective strategy for embedding safeguarding practice. For example, safeguarding practice such as safeguarding education and awareness were included in existing courses and events. Some Leads suggested these opportunities were easier to facilitate, reach stakeholders, and help reduce expenditure. One example of communication at an existing event is detailed below:

“For grassroots, we usually have a festival every quarter and it’s a three-day festival and for each day we actually allocate one day to talk to the kids another session for the parents and other session for the referees and coaches to make them aware of child safeguarding.”

Safeguarding communication, firstly by providing safeguarding education channels and secondly by creating content specific to the stakeholder group, has been discussed as helpful for a Safeguarding Lead. However, communication skills were also identified as an essential skill to have by several Safeguarding Leads. How to communicate, for example, in providing safeguarding content for education purposes as well as safeguarding awareness throughout the MA infrastructure and externally, was described by Leads as key for stakeholders to accept safeguarding and practice it. Communication originates from the learner themselves and how other stakeholders communicate in return. Learners voiced the notion of how to speak to different stakeholders (e.g., directors, coaches, parents, children, volunteers, national team representatives, colleagues, low economic backgrounds) about safeguarding in their role. As described below:

“This is a challenge for our safeguarding, for our program. We step by step thinking how to educate those club directors and then educate coaches in the club level and then to go also in front of the parents and kids and to speak maybe with different angles, some angle for the parents and then for the kids. And so, it’s long, long, long, long stretch.”

3.4. Promoting Safeguarding Awareness

Safeguarding awareness was identified as an influencing factor, to which perception, acceptance, and understanding of safeguarding were seen as beneficial for or hindering practice. Negative perceptions of safeguarding such as where safeguarding is perceived as a taboo subject that is ignored or seen as threatening by people in many of the Safeguarding Lead’s Member Associations and countries were discussed as barriers to implementing practice with those stakeholders:

“It is something that has traditionally been looked the other way. I think it’s a taboo subject and if you have heard anything about what happened to this kid or this coach? You wash your hands a little.”

In some MAs, the safeguarding journey was experienced as moving slowly, which reduces the sense of progress:

“I wish there was a way that could be just a button where you press, and everybody gets on board because we have a lot of lag when we introduce the bit at management level even at club level people are slow to jump onto the safeguarding bandwagon.”

The term ‘safeguarding’ also represents a challenge for several Safeguarding Leads because those within their countries and MAs are not clear on the meaning of this concept. The challenge begins in making people understand what safeguarding is:

“It’s not so easy for all the people to understand what safeguarding is. Actually, we use the concepts of respect and fair play. Through the concept or activity of the respective fair play we are developing safeguarding for all of the [Country], the football people. The football population is very big so, it’s not easy for all the football people to understand what safeguarding is.”

This example highlights the interactivity between tailoring the safeguarding concept to aid understanding for certain stakeholders through awareness and education.

Raising awareness of safeguarding throughout the MAs and their countries can begin to change perception, acceptance and understanding of safeguarding leading to progress in other influencing factors. For example, a sense of progress was reported with respect to raising awareness and supportive stakeholder relationships:

“Through my participation in this course, it has been very useful in helping me to raise awareness within our MA from top to bottom. I have found that with more awareness comes more support with safeguarding.”

However, some Safeguarding Leads highlighted the difficulty of raising awareness of safeguarding throughout their MA. One Safeguarding Lead stated:

“Our challenge is to raise awareness and to promote it and to get it down to the coaches, in the grassroots, the clubs, that’s our main challenge.”

3.5. Structuring the Institutional Setting

Participants felt that the organisational structure of the MA is important for safeguarding implementation. This was manifested in the presence of a clear structure, dedicated safeguarding department, designated safeguarding personnel and embedding safeguarding within everyone’s role and responsibilities.

Several Safeguarding Leads describe football organisations where there is a clear structure that allows safeguarding to be practiced. Having a safeguarding structure in place was perceived to help safeguarding capacity to grow. One learner identified the barrier of having an organisational structure that does not allow safeguarding practice to be easy:

“Our governance structure is really different and unique. I think like I said, our governance structure, our organization, we have Members that are state based or regional or even national and it makes it difficult to reach everyone because our football isn’t school based or even like region based. Geographically, there are national leagues that are local leagues. There are programs, lots of soccer in the [Country] that doesn’t even affiliate with our organization. So that’s one challenge.”

Establishing a safeguarding department within a MA was also deemed an important part of the organisational structure. Some MAs do not have a safeguarding department and find it difficult to centralise safeguarding practice, manage concerns and progress safeguarding practice. Having a safeguarding department within the MA needs to reflect the size of the organisation and adapt over time to changing circumstances. For example:

“Well, being able to count on more resources and more personnel. Our federation is growing fast, but its resources are limited. If there was an exclusive safeguarding department, it would be phenomenal because there is safeguarding work every day in our football that we could do. We know what very little information arrives and we know that it is much easier for things to happen that we do not want to happen.”

Ensuring sufficient numbers of safeguarding personnel are in place is regarded as essential so that individuals do not become isolated or overwhelmed. One learner explained:

“So being the focal point it’s been very challenging because you have to develop the educational program, you have to give it to coaches and then do classes to inform them and then you have to do classes for athletes and then for physical therapists, doctors. I mean education is I think my main focus right now and it’s been very hard because I’m the only one and you do have so many teams out there, so it’s been challenging.”

Several Safeguarding Leads suggested that beyond those in safeguarding-focused roles, it was also considered important to emphasise that safeguarding is part of everyone’s role in football. As one learner cited:

“Previously safeguarding was seen as one small part of football that some people in the Member Association need to know about. Now people recognise that safeguarding is a very important part that needs to be understood by everyone in the Member Association.”

3.6. Acknowledging the Context

Participants highlighted that it is important to acknowledge the contextual factors that shaped their experiences. Safeguarding Leads identified the size of the country, access to technology and cultural norms as contextual factors which shape the implementation of safeguarding. For instance, the larger the size of the country, the more difficult it was perceived to be effective in the safeguarding role, as explained by a Safeguarding Lead from a relatively large country:

“…you might know the [Country’s residents] the population of [Country] is very big and also not only the population, but the football population is also very big. So, if the population of the football population is not so big, it’s easy, it’s easier, but still we are struggling to implement the safeguarding all over the [Country].”

Some Safeguarding Leads also discussed challenges related to people having access to technology within their communities (e.g., having access at home to computers and issues with the internet connection). This was perceived to make it more difficult to effectively communicate with stakeholders, as one Lead explained:

“And even in [Confederation] it might be much more challenging because we don’t have a good Internet connection.”

The contextual factors are also related to a range of external cultural norms. Such factors refer to broader societal norms, including generational, women/girls, interpersonal violence, children, sport performance, parents, country, and religion norms. These norms were considered as a barrier which are not always aligned with the practice of safeguarding. An example of the difficulty with a country’s generational societal norm is described below:

“Well, actually, culturally well, [Country’s residents] are very polite to the older generation, so sometimes even if we wanted to say something or just to call them out and say that what they’re doing or what they’re saying is kind of hurtful, we try not to say that just because we try not to hurt their feelings and because we think they’re older. So, I guess that’s one of the most difficult things that we were trying to teach the children that it’s OK to say that you’re hurt, that you’re not feeling comfortable when adults tell you with this or they do certain actions that they feel very uncomfortable with. So that’s actually what we’re trying to teach the children right now but it’s kind of difficult because of that threat that we have here.”

There were also important internal cultural norms with MAs. An example of a coaching norm within football was the verbal abuse from coaches to players, as highlighted below:

“I don’t think we’re there yet because coaches just think that they could tell players whatever they want to tell him. I mean, I heard some things when I literally cringed. What was being said to some of the players like cringe as like, wow, I let you, really cringe, and I was like, if this is the norm, something is wrong and that’s why I kind of brought it up to the executive and because you have to be careful in that situation, you’re telling them they’re doing things the wrong way.”

3.7. Interacting Factors

It is important to emphasise that each of the previously discussed factors is affected by the other factors. In other words, the factors do not work in isolation but rather interact to create the environment in which the Safeguarding Lead is operating. This has been touched upon throughout the results, and a further example is illustrated below:

“If tomorrow you have a problem because your daughter or your son who plays soccer had a certain situation, you will come to the organisation. But what’s happening is the headquarters is in the capital, and grassroots soccer is played throughout the country. It is impossible for a person who lives inside [Town] to come to the capital to file a complaint. So that complaint with [person] is made by your league where [person] plays in and is archived in the capital. Who knows where? But then, as there is no information on the subject, that should exist and should be told to the 650 clubs in this country. Let them communicate it to the parents of the 60,000 children who participate in this country, if there is a problem, there is a reporting channel that is such and such. Hardly 10% of the things that happen to be done are reported.”

This example highlights the interaction between the contextual factors (i.e., the size and demographics of a country) and the structure of a football organisation, negatively influencing the reporting procedures that are in place (one central case management centre, which is difficult to access), and the lack of communication to the parents/guardians and children. The external context and organisational structure are affecting the management of safeguarding concerns by having hard-to-reach reporting procedures and limited communication to parents and children on how to disclose (safeguarding communication). This results in fewer safeguarding concerns being reported to the organisation.

The interactive nature of the factors emphasises how experiences were shaped by the extent to which there was alignment between the different aspects of safeguarding in their MA. Having a strategic and systemic alignment embedded throughout the organisation is important to ensure safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility. One Safeguarding Lead highlighted the importance of having a strategy in place:

“We are thinking long term now regarding safeguarding. We are preparing a five-year strategy. This is really very important, from the courses for coaches, to educating parents through to licensing clubs. This strategic approach ensures that we reach everyone.”

The extent to which there is alignment at the systemic level was also important as stakeholders have the same safeguarding knowledge and awareness:

“We have created systemic alignment from our National to club level. Our club licencing requires all parents and coaches to take education. We further provide level specific education in addition. There is strong awareness of Safe Sport throughout our country now. All participants have access to our Safe Sport Officer and the ability to file a complaint independent of their governing organization. We feel participants have confidential avenues to report and have greater awareness of best practices.”

Through alignment at these different levels, environments can be created in which safeguarding leads to experience, synergies, efficiencies, and shared focus. In contrast, without such alignments, safeguarding leads can experience resistance, tensions, and conflicts of interest.

4. Discussion

This research posed the question, ‘What factors shape the experiences of FIFA Safeguarding Leads in implementing the FIFA Guardians programme within their Member Associations?’ Six key factors emerged: enforcing rules and regulations, supporting relationships, tailoring the message, promoting safeguarding awareness, structuring the institutional setting, and acknowledging the context. Results also highlighted the interactive nature of the factors influencing safeguarding implementation at the Member Association level and the importance of these factors aligning. The qualitative data demonstrates how a range of influences interact to create a context, which either facilitates or creates barriers for Safeguarding Leads who are working to create safe football.

The data provided some support for previous related research. For example, there are synergies related to policies and procedures, monitoring, safeguarding training, organisational structure (Owusu-Sekyere et al. 2022); leadership support and support in terms of funding and resources (Hartill and Lang 2014; Rhind et al. 2017); collaboration (Rhind et al. 2017); safeguarding acceptance (Hartill and Lang 2014); roles and responsibilities, and context (Owusu-Sekyere et al. 2022; Rhind et al. 2017). The present study builds upon this literature by showing the nuances specific to a football environment, such as registration records needing to be maintained and monitored, the organisational structure as a more prominent key theme, and safeguarding communication to focus on how to communicate with stakeholders. It also emphasised how safeguarding leads can be supported to be more impactful through their role and how challenging it can be to make progress when working alone and in isolation. In other words, they need other members of the team to also play their part in creating an environment that then enables them to make progress more readily.

It is important to acknowledge the interactive nature of the factors identified, which also provides support to the interrelated nature of the Safeguarding Culture Model in Sport (Owusu-Sekyere et al. 2022). For example, the football organisational structure influences reporting procedures and the lack of safeguarding communication resulting from this to the parents and children. By adopting this conceptualisation, simply ensuring the factors are in place will not maximise safeguarding practice; attention must be paid to the interaction between these elements and how they can work together for best practice. The data also revealed the importance of factors interacting at the various levels of football (e.g., Governing Body, Confederation, MA, clubs, individuals) to either create alignment, and hence a facilitative culture, or misalignment, and hence resistance and barriers to change. These results demonstrate coherence with an ecological perspective on safeguarding, which conceptualises the complex interactions between the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem (Tuakli-Wosornu et al. 2024). For instance, at the individual level (micro), Safeguarding Leads discussed influencing factors such as their knowledge and skills, as well as their pedagogical ability to teach others. At the relational level (mesosystem), these Safeguarding Leads highlighted the importance of their interactions with colleagues and senior leaders. Many of the organisational level (exosystem) influences concerned factors related to the internal context and the MA. Finally, the role that can be played by the wide culture and societal influences (macrosystem) was particularly evident.

From a practical perspective, these results can inform FIFA’s support and education, which are put in place for the current and future Safeguarding Leads. For example, the results highlight messages for all of FIFA’s 211 Member Associations regarding how a conducive context may be facilitated. Also emphasised was the importance of leaders’ support in safeguarding throughout football, not only in words but also through their actions and decisions.

The current study focused on safeguarding in football, which typically does not align with generalisation to other settings (Polit and Beck 2003). However, it is important to note that there is some support for generalisation from qualitative research by a number of respected academics (e.g., Eisenhart 2009; Patton 2015; Tsang 2014). Nonetheless, there are some initial suggestions that merit further exploration. The Safeguarding Leads discussed a range of strategies which could help support designated safeguarding leads across all sports. For example, facilitating the development and maintenance of support networks for Safeguarding Leads in sport. There is a clear concern about the vast responsibilities required in the role for one person to manage. The considerable responsibility, stress, and emotional impact of the role cannot be underestimated. With limited people understanding this role and the impact on the individual, it is important that safeguarding officers connect with others in this position and find support (Hartill and Lang 2014; Hatfield 2014). The learners also reported how they would appreciate further support to help them develop their skills, such as training other safeguarding practitioners to be safeguarding instructors, and communication. Communication skills have been highlighted by people working in safeguarding and child protection in sectors beyond sport (Hackett 2022; Keys 2009).

Overall, the data support the Safeguarding Culture Model and CHILDREN framework. Thus, highlighting the continued presence of different factors needed to be considered when Safeguarding Leads are implementing safeguarding practice in football and across different sports. However, this study stressed the shift to move beyond identifying factors with theoretical and conceptual frameworks in research to how Safeguarding Leads put in place/overcome these influencing factors. There is therefore the potential for a broader community of practice to be built, which brings together everyone working in safeguarding across sport, education, faith-based settings, etc.

Arguably, one of the strengths of this study is the insights from 40 Safeguarding Leads from the Global North and South, providing valuable insights into their individual and collective experiences. It is critical that we welcome the voices from traditionally excluded groups/contexts, and particularly in relation to perspectives from the Global South which have traditionally been under-represented (Brackenridge et al. 2012; Tuakli-Wosornu et al. 2024). This represents the first study exploring the experiences of Safeguarding Leads implementing a safeguarding initiative across football, which makes the results considerable due to the worldwide reach of the game, and begins building a body of evidence with consensus on effective practice.

Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. Firstly, the research captured the Safeguarding Leads’ perspective. Clearly, this was the aim, but future research is merited that captures the views of other stakeholders in football, for example, leadership, coaches, and children. Secondly, the research did not capture any evidence of the impact of those in this role. Future research should identify indicators of a safeguarding culture and collect data to determine the extent to which those working in these roles are having an impact on these indicators. Thirdly, the research team was only able to conduct the interviews in English, Spanish, or French, in line with the course languages. There is therefore scope to engage with people working beyond the course languages in their respective countries, especially with the subsequent editions of the Diploma being delivered in Arabic and Brazilian Portuguese. Finally, examples of contextual factors were identified, highlighting the perceived importance of their influence on implementing safeguarding practice generally. Specific contexts were not the scope of this research and so future research addressing how specific contexts influence safeguarding practices of Safeguarding Leads is warranted.

5. Conclusions

Safeguarding Leads across the world experienced a range of influential factors within football when implementing safeguarding within their football Member Associations. The data revealed the importance of factors interacting at various levels to either create alignment, and hence a facilitative culture, or misalignment, and hence resistance and barriers to change. Evidence was provided to support the interrelated nature of the Safeguarding Culture Model in sport for effective safeguarding. As such, there is a need for a multi-faceted approach, such that everyone can play their part in ensuring that the safeguarding lead is a key member of an effective team. This can be achieved through developing a safeguarding approach that acknowledges contextual factors, includes structures, procedures, and relationships that support the safeguarding lead, raise awareness, and tailor the approach to the context and stakeholder groups, and ensures strategic alignment at all levels of the organization. It is also important to provide emotional and specialist support to these Leads in their role, to maximise their individual behaviour in practice. One individual in a Safeguarding Lead role cannot create an effective safeguarding culture across a Member Association purely on their own. Like football, safeguarding is a team game in which every stakeholder needs to play their part.