Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Hi, it's Steve Indig at sport law. Leave me a message, I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
[00:00:06] Speaker B: Hey Steve, it's Dina. You aren't going to believe what just came across my desk. We need to chat. Give me a call.
[00:00:25] Speaker A: It welcome to the latest episode of Sportopia. We're so excited to share our knowledge and have conversation about healthy human sport. To kick off year two of Sportopia, we thought we'd start with the big idea that led to the creation of the podcast we want Sport 2.0 across Canada.
[00:00:45] Speaker B: I can't believe, Steve, that what started out as this little idea has now grown and so excited to be working with you and listeners and talking about things that really matter. So, Sport 2.0, sport is in transition. What got us here isn't what we need to get us to where we want to go. And this can create all kinds of anxieties for people as they search for solid ground, meaning and purpose. So today we're going to be asking ourselves, if we were to give birth to a new sports system, one that was values based, inclusive, human centric, well resourced, what would it look like? So before we get started, Steve, on this big idea, what's coming across your desk this week?
[00:01:34] Speaker A: As usual, I like to look at my calendar to see what's happening. And one of the things that I'm routinely seeing is bylaws, bylaws, bylaws, bylaws. And most of that is in relation to the change in legislation in Ontario, where every not for profit here in this province have to update their bylaws and refile their articles of incorporation, their articles of amendment. But I don't want to talk about Anka. What I want to talk about is the conversations that I'm having with people. And it segues very well in today's topic is that people are starting to rethink membership, they're starting to rethink voting, they're starting to rethink board compositions and terms because volunteers are hard to find and good volunteers are hard to find. So a lot of the conversations I'm having is trying to create new models of membership and looking at the risk of having a voting pool of 6000 people, depending on the size of your organization, and trying to create a more intricate model where the membership might be a little bit more involved as maybe an opportunity for people to get involved in the governance of a club or a provincial or territorial sport body, and eventually maybe work their way up to being a board member. So that's keeping me busy is looking at governance and thinking about different ways of continuing to create sport. How about you, Dina?
[00:03:02] Speaker B: Well, I love, you know, bylaws, bylaws and more bylaws. I feel like I'm at a buffet and I'm going to skip the bylaws to go to one of my favorite topics, and that's the Nova. And the Nova profile, as you know, is a psychometric tool that we've been bringing into the canadian sports system for almost eight years now, I think, and I'm part of the faculty that does the training now. I just am so enamored with this amazing little tool and the impact that it can have on leaders to better understand themselves, their communication preferences, their motivations, their behaviors, how do they deal with conflict? It's such a brilliant tool. So what I'm so excited about is myself and the other coaches at sport law are starting to see more interest and uptake in the Nova. And in particular this week, I'm working with a CEO who called me and know I want to do all this proactive work around reimagining our governance system. Ok, great. And then he says, I also want to do more of this leadership development. Dina, what might you recommend? So we put in place, I was mapping out a whole strategy for him, and then noteworth of a lie. Two days later, he writes back and he's like, okay, we have to kickstart the Nova because he has now a conflict. He has something that's going to probably be looked at through the OSIC prism. And they're acknowledging that some of the ways in which the athlete was treated, they're not talking about sexual misconduct, they're talking about neglect and how maybe the athlete didn't receive the kind of care that the athlete and her parents thought would have been a standard. Right. Given the age of the athlete. And to his credit, the CEO really wants to take the bull by the horns, address this. And so he wants to novify his coaching staff and look for proactive methods to bring them into, let's call it a 21st century approach where the coaches are going to feel really confident in their communication skills and then also better understand their emotional needs and the emotional needs of the athletes, as opposed to, just as you and I know, Steve, coaches often are trained in the art and science of the technical tactical. But now a 21st century coach, as we move towards sport 2.0, is going to have to be master of all. They're going to have to be able to relate to different people, different communication preferences. Right. So really excited about the fact that a growing number of our clients are coming to us for proactive measures like the ones with the Nova. So as we start to talk about this little idea that could moving beyond a 20th century operating system towards something like sport 2.0, I'm wondering. Steve, I know what I think about when I think of Sport 2.0 because I've written, I don't know, a dozen blogs on the topic. What do you think of when you think of Sport 2.0?
[00:06:10] Speaker A: I think less is more.
[00:06:12] Speaker B: Oh, talk about that.
[00:06:14] Speaker A: We've presented this idea across the country with the hope on the horizon toward Dina, where we've talked about sharing and amalgamation and less people on boards and maybe less members. And I think less is more. And I think I alluded to it at the beginning of the podcast where finding good people, and when I say good people, it's not people who are willing to give their time. I think there are people who obviously do that. But it's about finding people with the skills and the experience necessary to take on the specific role that we need them to fill in. I was on a call last week with a client. We were doing a governance review, talking about board composition, and they had a very large board, about 18 or 19 people. And the reason they had such a large board was that was the work that they needed to conduct to operate the club. So they had portfolios for each director had a portfolio and a responsibility. And I said, well, why don't you try and segregate governance from operations? And the board would deal with the governance, and then the committees and staff and volunteers would deal with the operational side. And someone said, well, people want to have their vote and their voices heard if they're going to give their time.
And I was so pleased to see two individuals currently on the board put their hand up and said, I'm only on the board because I want to do the operational work. I want to be involved in the coaching, or the scheduling, or the equipment retention. And I don't really enjoy board meetings. It's not something I'm interested in doing. And I'd be more than happy to be the head coach or the technical director without being on the board. And I thought that was very refreshing to hear that where 2.0, in my opinion, is about putting people into positions of strength and experience that they want to excel at and taking away the things that they may not be interested in. I always fundamentally, half jokingly, but half not saying being a board member is boring. And that's because unless you like talking about strategy and bylaws and policies and fundraising and budgets. That's not the place for you. Most people love being involved in sport because of the sport itself. What happens on the field, the highs, the lows, the emotion, the benefits we see from being involved in coaching or being involved in playing sports. So I really see 2.0. Being less is more, less is more.
[00:08:47] Speaker B: I love that. And I think realistically, people are going to have to address the mammoth risk that is the less is more, because truth be told, and in one of the blogs I write about this as our version, our reliance on fossil fuel is our over reliance now on a depleted workforce, which is volunteers. And even though we've seen most of the nsos modernize, right, their governance practice, where the vast majority of the work, work gets done by staff, supported by very well intentioned and often very professional directors who understand their roles and responsibilities, not all, but most of them. Let's remember that the vast majority of sport is played out on the field of play. And there are just over 34,000 sport organizations across the country. And when we think of how many volunteers that requires, if we just do that rule of ten, right, that's a chunk of change, right? In terms of volunteers who may not have the knowledge, the skills, the time, the diverse perspective to actually run the affairs of a 20th century or 21st century sport organization. So I think we have to deal with the reality that the next generation, and this is research based, you can go check out the blogs if you're curious about this, the next generation, Steve, does not want to volunteer the way our current generation did. Right. They want different experiences. And if we don't really address that risk, we're going to be deeply, we'll be in a shortfall of good people to be able to deliver on the legal requirements as set out in your favorite b word, right? Bylaws. So for me, I think, and I'd love to hear your thoughts about this. I know years ago, I wrote about the great reimagining, right. And I talked to you. I remember, like, you and I were probably at a strategic planning session, and I was saying, I think we need to rethink how sport is governed. And imagine if we had one big entity that then had delivery partners across the provincial territorial regions, and then we had storefronts that were actually connected through the bylaws to the national office. Like, what would that look like? And I remember you said, dean, I'm going to need to give you a flak jacket because I don't think the audience is ready for what you are trying to espouse. So for me, when I think of Sport 2.0, we must, as you talk about the people, Steve, I would say we must spend more time thinking about the invisible stuff, the system, and reimagining and rethinking what that system needs to look like to deal with some of the risks, I said, and also to maintain relevance. So I'm curious what you think.
[00:11:44] Speaker A: Let's continue down the less is more path. We talk about this all the time. Multiple corporations, multiple societies, multiple not for profits, multiple boards, multiple board meetings, multiple annual general meetings, multiple audits. And I'm with you when I say less is more. It's about sharing. It's about amalgamation. Less corporate entities, more boots on the ground with respect to the operational side where people want to spend their time and see the rewards that come with that. I sometimes forget about the benefits of sport, and I have to thank my kids who are both involved in that, to be able to see the success and the failures that they have playing sport. And I remember being at a soccer meeting once and stopping and seeing 300 little timbit kids playing, learn to play soccer and remember why we do this. And I think that's where we need to put people into those positions of strength. So, again, back to the less is more. If we have the ability to have less corporations and more money to spend on sport itself, I would see that as a benefit. But it takes a significant shift in thinking. A lot of times, groups or clubs are established because we don't like how that group is doing it, and we move down the road and start our own club, and here we go. But maybe we're not going to appease everybody, but there are, of course, similarities where we can see people start to look at amalgamation through local clubs that are neighboring parties, or to sports that all play in the water or sports that all play on the ice could start looking at it more from a higher level perspective than these individual silos where we do things together. So I just love the idea of trying to simplify the governance and as you've said, and I've said, putting people into positions of strength where they want to participate, and that likely is not on the board.
[00:13:43] Speaker B: Yeah, I so agree. And so what would be the principles that we would use to even invite people into the conversation? And you and I have collectively worked for a moment or two in the canadian sports system. So we've seen a lot. And we also want to acknowledge that many of the funding partners, right, people who are involved in really shaping the experience right now, have, I'm sure, been spending lots of thoughtful time trying to map out what this would look like. But the challenge, if we're just going to speak truth to power here, the challenge is in the design of the architecture underneath the sports system, right? That was imagined and designed and delivered in the really hasn't caught up with the time. So when I think of principles that we could use to support a holistic conversation around, imagine that we have a white paper and we had, like, markers. We could kind of come together and say, how would we design sport today if we weren't beholden to the invisible kind of shackles that we've all become attached to? And I love that kind of conversation. So the first I've heard you say is simplicity. Less is more. So getting to simple, as Einstein says, requires a lot of hard work and thoughtfulness and conversation, which is so difficult right now because people are exhausted. So simplicity would be one principle. The second one is evidence based. We can look at other sectors that are part of the so called charitable groupings of organizations, and we have to acknowledge that the design of charitable organizations themselves are flawed. Right? They are privileged. Most of the charity work came from people with means who were supporting people in soup kitchens who didn't have means. So really turning the whole charitable organization and system on its head to reimagine what does it look like? If we look at sport as a valued public asset and we actually treat it as if it really matters? What would we do then? And the way that I like to think about it is seeing sport as a right. To me, that could be another principle. And we may not want to entrench it in law the way other rights are right now in the canadian constitution, right around universal health care and food safety and education, those are things that come to mind. But I wonder, Steve, when you think about sport as a right and maybe suspend all of your legal knowledge here for a moment, what happens when you start imagining a sport system that was simple and evidence based and started to see sport as a mean?
[00:16:28] Speaker A: I think there's two different approaches you could look at, and we've talked about this, that there would be almost like the franchise model. So pick a sport. Basketball. There's Canada basketball, and then there would be a Canada basketball office in Ontario and Alberta and BC and Manitoba and Quebec and the territories, et cetera. And that would eliminate a lot of the bureaucracy that occurs between conflicting opinions, usually based from board members and some staff, depending on their mentality. But I do want to go back to talk quickly about one of the problems. As you've alluded to, the funding model of sport is, again, siloed. Sport Canada funds national sport organizations. Provincial territorial governments fund provincial territorial governments. So if there was this national based organization that had franchise models in each province and territory, would that provincial and territorial government still fund that entity? And I'd like to think eventually the answer will be yes. So I really like having a direct line to sport, and whether it's from the national level to the PTO level or the PTO level to the club level, that simplicity will start eliminating some of the adults. Arguing, as I think about a lot of the cases that we have coming across our desks over the last 20 years, very rarely do they involve the athlete. It's always adults fighting over who knows what. And I think back to your expertise, Dina. When we talk about values and culture, what do we really want to see at the end of the day? We want to see children thrive. And I recognize that high performance sport might be a little bit into the adult realm, but I would probably endeavor to say 90% of sport is children. So when we create another not for profit, what's the end result of a not for profit? It's not profit. It's to see kids succeed. So why, again, can we have less not for profits with more expertise within that system?
[00:18:30] Speaker B: Well, indeed, why can't we? And so I think that that's what we're hearing, right. As we've moved across province and territory and province and back up to the territories, we will have seen three territories. Right. And it is incredulous, because actually, in the beautiful north, people are really resourceful, and they find ways to come together and be in community. And their delivery model, because of the nature of the fact that they don't have as many people, they're having to be a lot more resourceful with how they're deploying their limited assets. Right. In terms of people. So we've talked about this franchise delivery model, which actually helps to elevate the expectations. So for me, Steve, when I start playing with the straw dog that could be Sport 2.0, I also think about what must the franchisee demonstrate to be a member in good standing of this organization? And right now, you're the lawyer who's looking at the bylaws. Seems to me that we have to really up level, we have to raise the bar in terms of what it means to be a franchise holder. What do you think?
[00:19:42] Speaker A: I'm debating whether I'm allowed to swear on our podcast, but I probably said this before, that usually in sport, the poop runs uphill. And if there's an issue at a club and a participant or their family aren't happy with the outcome, it'll end up at the PTO. And if the PTO can't handle it, it'll end up at the NSO level. So I do think creating expectations that these franchisees, whether it's a PTO or a club, can manage their organization, I think that's very relevant to say, what are the standards of being associated with a recognized national sport organization? And I think that we need to lobby for that. I think we have to educate parents on what it means to be affiliated with a sanctioned activity, with a provincial sport body, a territorial body, or a national body. To say by becoming a member or affiliated with that association, what does that come with? Well, training, screening people in positions of strength, the ability to manage their poop.
[00:20:48] Speaker B: If you say the p word one.
[00:20:49] Speaker A: More time, I'm done.
[00:20:51] Speaker B: I'm going to give you a time out. I love that. Right.
When we think about this, really what you're saying is, as you said, we want to put people in positions of strength, and only the self aware people can actually know what it is that is motivating them to volunteer their time. And what we're hearing as we travel across the country is people are exhausted. People are saying, if I don't lift up my hand, nobody's going to do it. And then we say, yeah, and then what? Well, then the kids don't get to play. And our rebuttal is, we may need to take that. Might need to take a backseat. Over the next year, 18 months, as sport starts to reconfigure itself, because in the end, if we just look at this from a business model, the kids are dropping out in droves. As soon as they become teenagers, they are stopped playing competitive sport. So our current delivery model, if we look at the exodus of kids, by the time they're 13 1415, right. We aren't doing a great job, I think, of creating sport for all, of making it a fun, safe, welcoming, inclusive experience. And partly it's because of the 95% of sport that's in the community doesn't have, as you said, steve, the professional people who understand their seeds, who are trained and educated. And so it creates that kind of unhealthy environment where kids are going, I'm not having fun anymore. So they leave, and then it's hard to get them back. And you know what happens when they do come back. They are coming back as disgruntled parents who didn't have a good job and are now volunteering in positions of power. Why? Because their kids are there. And so they are conflicted. Why? Because their kid is there. But we don't have those conversations at the community level. So, as you said, the fifth kind of principle for me is if we have a values first orientation. We know from research that Canadians have said they want sport to be fun, fair, excellent, and inclusive. So let's deliver on that promise and ensure that the organizations that are responsible for delivering sport actually ensure that they start with values. Right? That the culture that they are swimming in, running in, playing in that. That culture is one that's really upholding those values. If they're not measuring beyond money and metals, they are missing the point. Right. We have to elevate a triple bottom line so that people are measuring the lived experience of people inside these organizations.
[00:23:27] Speaker A: You haven't talked about it yet, Dina. It's something that you and I have talked about offline, but you've had some other ideas, rather than just the franchise model from a national or provincial or territorial organization, but more of that club based model where a club is offering more than one sport or the schools. I know that was something you've chatted about.
[00:23:48] Speaker B: Yeah, for sure. I think if we were to reimagine a new way of delivering sport in the country, what would that look like? And we can look at other models right around the world where, for instance, and we've spoken about this before, where in Norway, for instance, they have this ethos called the joy of sport. And really, until the kids are later or older, they are not specializing the kids and parents as well, like this idea of them being physically active alongside their children is really entrenched in the norwegian experience. Well, those kinds of values aren't just, like, baked into the system and then implemented or lived or experienced the next day. Those are coordinated, aligned, integrated systems that must be set as an agenda of care from the top and really promoted down to the lived experience in communities. Which is why, for me, Steve, when I think of what makes me proud to be canadian, I think of our universal healthcare. And, yes, let's agree that there's room for improvement, but the fact that all Canadians should be able to have access to quality health care is something that I'm really proud of, that we have, I think. And there's some issues. Educational experiences where all kids should have access to quality educational experiences. Right. Those are fundamental principles that we have a justice system that kind of upholds those tenets of a just civil society. So when I think of these core cornerstones of what it means to be canadian, including our political system, but we won't go down that pathway. I'd like to see sport elevated to the statue of a. Right. And if we were to reimagine a system where when children are born, the parents and the pediatrician are talking about healthy physical activity and recreational opportunities for all children, I'd like to bet, and we know this to be true, when children have access to quality physical daily activity, their ability to be confident and their ability to learn and their ability to be social with each other grows exponentially. There was a fun fact, I'm going to get the statistic wrong, but this came from the Canadian Parks and Recreation association years and years ago. I'm taking you back 20 years. And they had a really good statistic that they were putting out. It was a promotion about the investment in parks and recreation. Right. If you give children access to swimming and all these lessons, right, and it's going to cost you $8,000, your likelihood of seeing that same child under the age of 18 go into an incarceration program, that's going to cost us $97,000. Right? So for every $3,000 that you spend on a child, you're going to save.
[00:26:45] Speaker A: $97,000 because they won't go to jail.
[00:26:48] Speaker B: They're not going to be in jail. Well, they were showing the causality because they know that kids who grow up with these kind of cornerstones around having good food, good shelter, good family life, including access to sport and recreation, by the time they're 18. This is the principles of healthy child development. And if we do that good work, we don't have to worry so much about all the other stuff that gets in the way. So I know I'm talking Sportopia language, right? But if we don't do it, who will? So to me, sport, if it was a right, I think we would shift the conversation and then the structure from national provincial to community would change.
[00:27:30] Speaker A: Totally agree, except for the going to jail part.
I want to talk, Dean, about some of the practices that currently exist that will help us achieve sport 2.0. And one of the things that we've been learning and hearing about on the hope tour is that people have a desire and a want to share. We did throw around the award amalgamation, and a lot of people got scared of that because some people interpret that more from an employment perspective than a volunteer perspective. I'm going to lose my job. And that is far from the truth. We still need those paid people. Absolutely. But I do think that there's a big appetite for people to share, and we're starting to see that in some of the work we're doing on the policy side, where we used to do a policy for a provincial body or territory body and it would just be for them. And now they're starting to ask and saying, well, can we use it and create a template or a more thorough version so that the clubs can adopt it? So I do see that happening from the policy perspective, but the hard conversations of amalgamation are happening very slowly. But I wonder if you have any other thoughts on what the current system is doing to move towards this 2.0 model.
[00:28:46] Speaker B: Yeah, such a great question, Steve. I would say that we need to move into, and you're saying it here, I think these established peer to peer networks where people can come together and have very deliberate, thoughtful conversations about how do we want to grow up as a sector. Maybe that's a different way of saying it. We had this structure that supported us for 50 years now.
Well, what do we want the next 50 years to look like? One of the teachings from indigenous wisdom that I'm really taken with is the idea of seven generations, right? That we want to build something, we talk about it being sustainable. In indigenous tradition, they talk about seven generations, that when we make a decision, hopefully it's going to resonate and be a place of health for seven generations to come. And so that's my invitation that as we start to acknowledge, because I think more people than not now are really tuning into the fact that this is no longer working for us. So if and when we come together in a collective reimagining exercise, I think we have to acknowledge the peer to peer. It can't be top down, it can't be a few privileged people up in ivory towers envisioning sport 2.0. I think we need a collective reimagining that involves the people like the young people, the next levels of stewards and educators that are going to be responsible for leading and stewarding sport after we're gone. So I think that, to me, is what I think is really important. And I do think existing practices like we can lean into the true sport principles right over and over and over again. We went to Canadians and asked them, how do you want sport to be? What should the lived experience of sport be? And those values of fairness, fun, excellence and inclusion, the seven principles of true sport. Those to me, that's the language. We don't have to re envision the language. It's been there and it's been validated in research over and over again. So, to me, I think that is what we really need to anchor our next conversation. And we need to do this sooner than later, Steve. So, speaking of know, there's more gatherings and opportunities. You and I will continue to travel and engage people in conversations. I think it would be really helpful for us to say, well, what do we want leaders to do? And I'll start and maybe you can end for me. Leaders, they need to be asking questions at the board table. They need to be in their area of control. They need to start having the kinds of conversations you and I are having. So they need to ask their board and their senior staff, if we could change one thing about how we're delivering our sport, what would that look like? Right? What are the values that we hope people are experiencing? How do we know that they're having a good or not so good experience? We have a list of questions that we've curated in one of the blogs, so you can go there and ask any one of the questions. But I think we really need to ask the questions. The people on the ground level, right? The community based organizations need to start poking up at the PTSO organizations. And those provincial territorial sport leaders need to be poking up to the national office to force a more collective conversation so that we can get to what you said, steve, a less is more. Not like we're booting people off the island, right? There's going to be enough room for everyone to play. But maybe we don't have, and we don't need this whole reliance on a depleted model that wasn't designed to meet 21st century expectations.
[00:32:37] Speaker A: We're not booting anybody. We're moving people into positions of strength and interest and experience. There are still lots of work that will have to be done. What I like to recommend, Dina, for leaders to do next is think ahead, start having the conversation. Just talk about it and find your champions. And eventually, maybe you put together a working group and start having these holistic conversations, these 30,000 foot conversations, to say, what can we do to make things better, to get to 2.0, to create a system that we know we can thrive in. And I just think if that conversation happens, it'll start and we just need that little tipping point. I think once one organization does it, others will start looking at it. A lot of times people will call me or call us, and I'm a small organization. And I want to make these changes. And I say you think being small is a disadvantage and maybe it is from a financial perspective, but from a making change perspective, it's a lot simpler. There's less people to engage and less people to quote, quote, convince that this is the right thing to do. So hopefully somebody will take us up on our offerings today and maybe look towards less is more and simplifying and putting people into positions of strength and experience.
[00:33:58] Speaker B: Yeah, well, as always, you have so much insight, Steve, into these kind of deliberate conversations, and I think that that's why we have these conversations, you and I, right through Sportopia, because it's our way of giving back as we start to move towards 2.0. So thank you as always. And in the episode notes below, you're going to find some sport law blogs where you can find more information related to this little vision we call a sport 2.0 and some additional considerations on how you, the listener, can activate the vision. Thank you so much to all of our listeners. We're really grateful to have shared the past year with all of you. And Steve, can you believe it? When we started this journey? Did you believe that we'd actually capture more than 3000 listeners in our first year?
That is so humbling. Who knew?
[00:34:49] Speaker A: I know this is a podcast so people can't see me shaking my head in laughter because you approached me a year ago and said let's do a podcast. And I said let's not because it's a lot of work and I don't really know how to do this or when to do this. And here we are. So really thank you for pushing me to do this and it's been a lot of fun and really hope our listeners have got something out of hearing. You and I banter every couple weeks.
[00:35:20] Speaker B: So you heard it here, folks. Steve has given me permission to push him, so stay tuned for what that's going to look like.
[00:35:28] Speaker A: As always, to have your stay in Sportopia. Email us at hello at Sportlaw, CA or on social media at Sportlaw, CA to let us know what you want to hear about next. Stay tuned for the next episode.
[00:35:42] Speaker B: Until then, be well.
