An Independent Review of the World Squash Federation 8 November 2016 Rowland Jack Presentation to the WSF Conference

Contents Context Governance assessment 360 degree review Recommendations Questions

Context

Context President’s announcement at EGM Objective: To determine whether the WSF and its partners are “fit for purpose” in their governance, structures, areas of responsibility and relationships, including relationships with the Olympic Movement and other key stakeholders Add about I Trust Sport

Approach Process-driven Culture-driven ASOIF governance tool 360 degree review Subjective Objective

Governance assessment

Sports development & solidarity ASOIF tool 50 indicators divided into: Transparency Integrity Democracy Sports development & solidarity Control mechanisms

ASOIF tool – scoring 1 2 3 4 Not fulfilled at all Partially fulfilled Not fulfilled at all 1 Partially fulfilled 2 Fulfilled 3 Well-fulfilled according to rules / procedures 4 Totally fulfilled in a state-of-the-art way

ASOIF tool scoring – example 5.7 Decisions can be challenged through internal appeal mechanisms on the basis of clear rules

ASOIF tool scoring – example 5.7 Decisions can be challenged through internal appeal mechanisms on the basis of clear rules Score Definition No 1 Some opportunity for internal appeals 2 Internal appeals policy in place 3 Internal appeals policy in place, evidence of implementation 4 State-of-the-art appeals policy, evidence of implementation, outcomes published

ASOIF tool scoring – example 5.7 Decisions can be challenged through internal appeal mechanisms on the basis of clear rules Evidence: Dispute resolution process - Articles paras 152-4 Rule for appeals - Code of Conduct, para 9 Disciplinary/Appeals Committee activity in Exec Report Score Definition No 1 Some opportunity for internal appeals 2 Internal appeals policy in place 3 Internal appeals policy in place, evidence of implementation 4 State-of-the-art appeals policy, evidence of implementation, outcomes published

Positive Limit of 2 x 4 year terms for elected positions Good range of information published Accounts audited externally Appropriate and functioning internal appeals process

Room for improvement Ethics committee not independent Only some board/commission decisions published Limited information about prevention of match-fixing Limited representation of athletes/stakeholders Lack of risk management procedures Some guidelines on gender equality and continental representation but not full regulations Limited resources restrict development activities Consideration: proportionate requirements

Analysis of scores Category Average (out of 4) Transparency 2.1 Integrity 1.5 Democracy 1.9 Sports development/solidarity 0.8 Control mechanisms 1.4

Sources Memorandum & Articles of Association Executive Committee Report 2014-15 Report of the Directors & Financial Statements – 30/6/15 Code of Ethics / Code of Conduct Minutes of EGM on 3/6/16 Strategic Plan 2016-20 Anti-Doping Rules 2015 Environment Policy Issues of Instant Update Andrew Shelley and Gerard DeCourcy

360 degree review

360 degree review 30+ individuals approached: WSF officials and staff WSF Regional Federation leaders Member National Federation leaders PSA representatives Players Promoter Journalist Broad spectrum of views

Questions Your view of the WSF? Should the WSF focus on standards, rules and regulations or more ambitious work on coaching, development, promotion? Should WSF Regional Federations be more/less autonomous? How well are Member Nations serviced by WSF and Regional Federations? Should the PSA do more to develop the game, or focus on the Tours? Should the PSA and WSF have a closer relationship? If so, in what ways? Your vision for Squash for next decade?

Respondents Name Organisation Role Craig Archer Pan-American Squash Federation Vice President Neven Barbour Oceania Squash Federation President Marcel Borst European Squash Federation Gerard DeCourcy Downie Stewart Lawyers Partner / former WSF Vice President 2006–10 Tom Duggan England Squash Performance Director Jacques Fontaine (*) Alex Gough Professional Squash Association CEO Linda MacPhail World Squash Federation David Mandel Squash Australia John Nimick Event Engine Inc Tournament promoter N Ramachandran 5 others asked to remain anonymous

Responses – points generally agreed WSF and PSA need to work collaboratively towards a common vision for squash Given the funds available, the WSF administration operates effectively Lack of resource at global and regional level PSA has had a positive impact on the professional game Squash should continue to aspire to the Olympic programme

Responses – other recurrent themes WSF: Failure to implement a strategic plan effectively Leadership not well-regarded beyond a small circle and acts on occasion in a unilateral manner Few assets to monetise, should be more ambitious Not promoting squash effectively Governance structure needs to be reformed Should continue to be responsible for international governance Olympic campaigns have detracted from other activities President has personally invested time/resource in Olympic campaigns AGMs poorly attended PSA should dedicate some resource to development Worrying decline in squash in some developed markets

Responses - disagreement Balance of WSF and PSA responsibilities in promoting squash Role of WSF in running events WSF voting system – one member, one vote or a weighted system

Recommendations

Recommendations Derive from 360 degree review or governance assessment or both Several overlap with AGM proposals Role of culture Need to prioritise

Recommendations – by type Strategic plan Appoint INEDs Increased role for staff Review WSF assets Maintain IOC Recognition “Stakeholder Council” Review voting system Revenue share with PSA Proactive contributions Risk management process Independent Ethics Committee Regional federations aligned Publish minutes Increased role for athletes Practical Structure Financial Olympic

Recommendations – by source Strategic plan Appoint INEDs Increased role for staff Review WSF assets Maintain IOC Recognition “Stakeholder Council” Review voting system Revenue share with PSA Proactive contributions Risk management process Independent Ethics Committee Regional federations aligned Publish minutes Increased role for athletes Practical Structure Key: █ 360 degree review █ ASOIF tool █ Both Financial Olympic

Technical governance Develop a multi-year strategic plan for squash with stakeholder Formalise agreement with PSA Joint statement of commitment Introduce a formal process for risk management Publish minutes as default option

Governance structure 1 or more independent, non-executive directors for Executive Board “Stakeholder Council” instead of Executive Committee Define role – scrutinises EB Independent Ethics Committee Increased role for athletes in decision-making PSA Players’ Committee member on WSF Athletes’ Commission Broaden responsibilities of WSF administration, protect EB authority Review WSF voting system Encourage WSF regions to align more closely with WSF

Additional resources Review WSF assets and consider new assets for commercial development Discuss revenue share model with PSA, funds for agreed development projects

Olympic Movement Remain compliant with IOC Recognised IF status Look for opportunities to contribute to calls for expertise

Acknowledgements Thanks to all who have offered time and support: Interviewees Andrew Shelley Gerard DeCourcy John Zerafa - VERO communications Prof- Jean-Loup Chappelet – IDHEAP Cover image: Steve Line - squashpics.com

Questions

Thank you rjack@itrustsport.com +44 7824 119 774 @itrustsport