CSUSOP Is The Aspen Institute Sports & Society Program's Pet Project????
Yesterday, the Aspen Institute Sports & Society Program (AISSP) released, “The long-awaited Commission report on sports governance is here. What does it say, and what comes next?”
The AISSP tells the readers that the Final Report of the Commission of the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics (CSUSOP) is BIG – 277 pages with 348 footnotes, 46 charts, 44 sections, and 41 pages of historical background.
The word count of the AISSP article is a WHOOPING 3,274, but it has NO mention of “Deaflympics”!
This article mentions that the Aspen Institute acted as the CSUSOP’s fiscal agent!!!
The AISSP sponsored the Project Play Summit 2023 in Colorado Springs, CO, on May 17-18, 2023. Three of the 61 featured speakers were CSUSOP Commissioners Dionne Koller, Edwin Moses, and Melissa Stockwell, plus SafeSport CEO Ju’Riese Colon.
Associated Press Reporter Eddie Pells covered the Summit and wrote, “Still, possibly the biggest unknown is whether the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee or Congress will heed the recommendations the Commission makes. Koller said regardless of what is adopted and what is ignored, the Commission is dedicated to “the most fair process possible” as it dives into complex subject matter that rarely elicits across-the-board agreement.”
The AISSP developed a webpage about the announcement of the coming CSUSOP hearing. Look at the name of the link address - https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Press-Release-CSUSOP-Hearing.pdf.
The CSUSOP let TWO (not one) AISSP staffers testify before the CSUSOP hearing in Washington, DC, on September 6th.
After watching the CSUSOP hearing on C-Span, The Sports Examiner Editor Rich Perelman wrote:
Tom Farrey, the founder of the Aspen Institute’s Sports & Society Program, told the nine Commission members present about the research he originally did for his 2008 book, Game On: The All-American Race to Make Champions of Our Children:
“When you peel back the layers, I found a failure of sports governance, of policy. I wrote a chapter on the 1978 Amateur Sports Act, which tasked the U.S. Olympic Committee and affiliated [National Governing Bodies] with (a) selecting and supporting teams that represent our country, and (b) coordinating and developing participation opportunities, down to the community level.
“But it was an unfunded mandate. And within a few years, the USOPC was telling Congress explicitly that it can’t both get Americans off the couch and onto the podium, that it lacked the resources and the authority to do so. And they were right. And I think it’s time we listened.”
Farrey pointed to the “Children’s Bill of Rights,” developed by the Aspen Institute’s Project Play initiative with contributions from – among others – the U.S. Center for SafeSport and the Center for Sport and the Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law, led by Commission co-Chair Prof. Dionne Koller, and endorsed by the USOPC and others. Speaking of the USOPC, the National Governing Bodies and other organizations involved in elite sport:
“What most haven’t done, and can’t do under the current Sports Act, is change their business model to prioritize mass participation and support for quality programs. They are beholden to corporate sponsors more interested in media stars, who can draw eyeballs to products.
“That’s why each NGB submits a high-performance plan to the USOPC, which then distributes more than $110 million annually to help podium-potential athletes. It’s a commitment to individual excellence, which is good. But it’s also a recipe for dysfunction without an even greater commitment to systems excellence.
“What we need is for every NGB to submit a ‘grass-roots performance plan,’ or a ‘GPP’ as I would call it. A ‘grass-roots performance plan’ would include a strategy and reporting – verified by a third party – on efforts to grow participation rates, to recruit youth from under-represented populations, to improve coach quality, to partner with schools, to prevent all forms of abuse – emotional, physical and sexual – put whatever you want in there … and raise another $110 million, or $500 million that gets distributed based on the quality of the NGB’s ‘GPP.’
“Then, re-distribute much of that money to community programs that align with best practices and deliver results.”
And Farrey noted that the USOPC does not have to be the instigator, coordinator or monitor of such an effort:
“If the USOPC does not want, or is not a good fit for the grass-roots role any more, then oversight needs to go to another entity.”
He suggested it could be part of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, or a quasi-governmental entity akin to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, or something new. But:
“That body should be guided by a national sports policy, which we don’t have. … Public and private funding streams should be identified to support this essential work. …
“Re-write the Amateur Sports Act and center the needs of youth and communities, and watch everything that sits on top of that base flourish: more athletes, better athletes, and, yes, more Olympic and Paralympic inspiration.”
Asked directly about the changes needed to the Stevens Act, he explained:
“The law is not written in a manner that allows them to have a sufficient level of authority over the grass roots. It just says ‘coordinate amateur sports activity, set some national goals,’ but how? I mean, this was language that was written nearly 50 years ago. It was our first attempt at sport governance in this country. It was a start, but we can do much better.”
Farrey also noted that in the dozen other countries he has studied, the National Olympic Committees are not tasked with mass participation development; it’s handled by another entity which is focused just on that. And in response to a question, he said that a state or local organization could also be effective, instead of creating a national one.
Editor paused,
Funding? Farrey suggested looking not just at direct public funding, but other models tied elsewhere, such as the British use of a portion of funds in the national lottery, or perhaps a portion of revenues from the rapidly-expanding sports betting programs being adopted by each state.
In his same article, Editor Perelman stated:
Jeff Mansfield, the President of the USADSF pointed out that the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 did not make any allowance for special support for deaf athletes, and the current USOPC alignment with the International Paralympic Committee has left deaf athletes – who participate in a separate multi-sport event, the Deaflympics – on their own, especially compared to Paralympians supported by the USOPC. He asked for an amendment to the Act to require the USOPC to assist deaf athletes in the same way
Mr. Farrey, could you kindly tell us why your AISSP has ignored the needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes?
In conclusion, as an old pro from Capitol Hill, I must inform you that the CSUSOP Final Report mentioned seventeen (17) documents provided by AISSP in the Final Report - more than any other organization!
Oddly, USADSF President Mansfield submitted over 2,000 pages of documents to the CSUSOP, but only two were footnoted in the Final Report - see page 51.
One more!
The AISSP mentioned the fundamental flaws of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. It could be false! Read the below.
“The U.S. Olympic [and Paralympic] Committee has never once held a seminar for its member organizations on the letter, spirit and intent of the act under which they operate. Which is incredible, when you think about it,” told the Colorado Springs Gazette by Michael Harrigan, the founding force and former director of the President’s Commission on Olympic Sports in 1975-77. He wrote in detail about the topic in a 2018 piece for Sports Business Journal. “So it’s no surprise then that people get it wrong. They have no sense of history.”
Another one!
The AISSP should read, “On the trail of display errors at the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Museum.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
