Executive Director Sport Survey Results

Purpose: Too often, those who oversee sport at various levels, whether as administrators, technical leaders, or board members, are handed recommendations without being asked for their insights. Decisions are made without tapping into the lived realities of those closest to the challenges.

This survey was created to change that. We believe that those in positions of sport oversight have valuable perspectives that are too often overlooked. By gathering input directly from those responsible for implementing policies and shaping the athlete experience, we can move beyond theoretical solutions and towards actionable, real-world improvements.

The survey, open to all Executive Directors across sports, received 103 responses. The results were analyzed using AI to ensure objectivity and eliminate bias, extracting average scores for quantitative questions and key themes from qualitative responses. The findings were then consolidated into this report for clarity and actionable insights.

Key Themes from the Survey Responses

1. Support from board and club leadership

Support from board and club leadership is rated 2.04/5, reflecting a low to moderate level of support. Many respondents highlighted a lack of clear roles, guidance, and proactive involvement from their board members later in the survey, making it difficult to implement meaningful change at the club level. While some directors feel supported, others believe that decision-making structures limit their ability to take decisive action. The gap between expectations and actual support suggests a need for better alignment between leadership and those executing day-to-day operations.

2. Support from national governing bodies (NGBs)

Support from national governing bodies (NGBs) is rated 1.43/5, indicating very low satisfaction and widespread frustration among sport directors. Many respondents indicated later in the survey, that NGBs function more as regulatory bodies than as true partners in development, providing oversight rather than actionable support. The dissatisfaction is further reinforced by a desire for greater autonomy at the club and grassroots level, as many believe top-down governance is out of touch with the realities of local sport organizations. This disconnect points to an urgent need for NGBs to transition from a compliance-driven role to one that actively supports and empowers directors and clubs

3. Biggest Gap in the Sport System

Top Responses:

• Communication → 44.66%
• Support for administrators & clubs → 24.27%
• Alignment → 16.50%

Theme: A lack of clear and effective communication is the most significant gap in the sport system, cited by nearly 45% of respondents. This breakdown in communication leads to misalignment, inefficiencies and frustration at various levels. Additionally, 24% of respondents highlighted a lack of support for administrators and clubs, while 16% pointed to a need for better alignment. The results indicate that improving communication pathways between stakeholders is critical to fostering a more unified and efficient sport system.

4. One Change to Improve the Sport System

Common Suggestions:

• Overhaul governance (e.g., start over, remove inefficiencies) → 12.62%
• Shift power from governing bodies to clubs → 5.83%
• Eliminate duplications and bureaucracy (e.g., redundant districts, excess governance layers) → 2.91%

Theme: The most frequently suggested change (12.6%) was to overhaul governance, with respondents advocating for a complete restructuring of the system. Shifting power from governing bodies to clubs followed at 5.8%, emphasizing the need for more grassroots control. Lastly, 2.9% of respondents called for the elimination of duplications and bureaucracy, highlighting frustrations with redundant governance layers. The results suggest that governance reform is seen as the most critical change needed to improve the sport system.

5. Biggest Issue in the Sport System

Top Issues:

• Governance inefficiencies (e.g., "too many hands in the pot") → 4.85%
• Coaching quality and quantity → 2.91%
• Pay-to-play system → 7.77%

Theme: The pay-to-play model was the most frequently cited issue (7.8%), emphasizing financial barriers that limit participation. Governance inefficiencies followed at 4.9%, reflecting concerns over bureaucratic complexities and excess oversight. Meanwhile, coaching quality and quantity was highlighted by 2.9% of respondents, suggesting that while coaching remains a concern, structural and financial issues are seen as more pressing barriers.

6. Sport System Support for Long-Term Athlete Development

• Sport System's Support for Long-Term Athlete Development: 1.30 / 5

Trend: Low ratings (mostly 1s and 2s out of 5).?

Theme: The current structure does not adequately support long-term athlete development, likely due to fragmentation and governance inefficiencies.

7. Decision-Making Structure (Centralized vs. Decentralized)

• Too centralized → 85.44%
• Too decentralized → 10.68%
• Balanced → 3.88%

Theme: The overwhelming majority (85%) of respondents believe that the decision making in sport system is too centralized, suggesting that decision-making power is concentrated at higher levels, limiting local flexibility and responsiveness. A smaller group (10%) feels the system is too decentralized, pointing to inconsistencies across organizations. Very few (4%) believe the system is balanced, reinforcing the idea that decision-making structures are fundamentally flawed and require restructuring.

8. Volunteer Engagement & Support

• Effectiveness in Engaging & Supporting Volunteers: 2.38 / 8
• 1/8 → 42 responses
• 2/8 → 23 responses
• 3/8 → 15 responses
• 4/8 → 10 responses
• 5/8 → 8 responses
• 6/8 → 3 responses
• 7/8 → 2 responses

Theme: With an average score of 2.38/8, volunteer engagement is rated as low to moderate. A significant number of respondents (42) rated it at 1/5, indicating major concerns, while only a handful (5%) rated it above 5. This suggests that most organizations struggle to effectively engage and support volunteers, with a large proportion feeling that more structured efforts are needed.

9. How Governing Bodies Can Better Support Directors

• Offer Genuine Support → 14.6%
• Listen to those presiding over local clubs → 13.6%
• Clarify roles & responsibilities → 5.8%

Theme:? The most frequently cited need (14.6%) is for genuine support, rather than just regulatory oversight. Additionally, 13.6% of respondents emphasized the importance of governing bodies actively listening to those running sport at the ground level. A smaller but notable portion (5.8%) highlighted the need for clearer roles and responsibilities to reduce confusion and improve efficiency.

10. Biggest Barrier to Progress in the Sport System

• Leadership issues (e.g., “Old boys club”) → 13.59%
• Ingrained resistance to change (e.g., “That’s the way it’s always been”) → 6.80%
• Lack of unified vision → 0.97%

Theme: The most significant barrier cited (13.6%) is leadership issues, with concerns about entrenched power structures like the "old boys club" limiting progress. Additionally, 6.8% of respondents highlighted resistance to change as a major obstacle, where outdated mindsets prevent necessary innovation. Surprisingly, only 1% of responses referenced a lack of unified vision, suggesting that governance and leadership challenges are perceived as more immediate roadblocks than overarching strategic misalignment.

Final Thoughts.?

The results of this survey reveal deep-rooted systemic issues in the governance of sport. The governance structure is identified as broken, burdened by excessive layers of oversight and bureaucracy. Instead of enabling progress, governing bodies are often perceived as barriers, creating inefficiencies that hinder meaningful change.

Directors overwhelmingly express the need for greater autonomy and support. There is a clear call to shift power to those directly involved in grassroots sport, allowing them to lead with clarity and purpose. Rather than being constrained by top-down regulations, they need well-defined guidelines and practical tools to drive progress at the community level.

The lack of alignment and communication further exacerbates these challenges. The fragmented system leads to inconsistent decision-making, confusion and inefficiencies across all levels of sport. A unified direction is necessary to streamline operations and create a more cohesive structure that serves all stakeholders effectively.

Compounding these issues is the entrenched resistance to change. Many point to an outdated leadership culture, often referred to as the “old boys club,” as a significant obstacle to reform. Without decisive action, the current system will continue to stagnate, preventing innovation and meaningful progress. A radical overhaul is not just an option—it is an urgent necessity.

This survey underscores the critical need for transformation. Addressing these systemic flaws requires bold leadership, collaboration, and a willingness to challenge the status quo. The future of sport governance depends on embracing change, prioritizing efficiency, and ensuring that those closest to the game have a voice in shaping its directio