An Independent Review of the World Squash Federation

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

2. Contents • Context • Governance assessment • 360 degree review • Recommendations • Questions

3. Context

4. 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

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

6. Governance assessment

8. ASOIF tool 50 indicators divided into:

9. ASOIF tool – scoring

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

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

12. ASOIF tool scoring – example 5.7Decisions 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. Analysis of scores

16. 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

17. 360 degree review

18. 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

19. Questions • Your view of the WSF? • Should the WSF focus on standards, rules and regulations or moreambitious 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?

20. Respondents 5 others asked to remain anonymous

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. Recommendations

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

26. Recommendations – by type Practical Structure Financial Olympic

27. Recommendations – by source Practical Structure Key: █360 degree review █ ASOIF tool █ Both Financial Olympic

28. 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

29. 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

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

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

32. 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

33. Questions

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