Edition 01/2003

In this months IEA Sport Monthly Update we have reproduced an article written by John O’Callaghan of the legal firm Riordan and Partners in Melbourne that appeared in the December 2002 edition of Sports Medicine Australia’s magazine, Sport Health.

This article addresses the issue of team selection, including matters such as fairness, clarity, consistency and legal liability.  A policy and procedure in regard to team selection should be included in a sports risk management program.

Sport is not a matter of life and death It is more important than that

It is trite to observe that selection in a sporting team is important.  Selection in a team is often the culmination of years of training and hard work by the athlete concerned.  Furthermore, there is an enormous “ripple effect”.  This includes the athlete’s family (parents driving to the swimming pool at 5.00am), friends (“Why don’t you ever come out with us?”), schools (“Stephen fell asleep at school again this morning.”) and the community at large (Headline “JULIE SCOTT MAKES NATIONAL TEAM”)

As sport becomes more and more of a commercial commodity, it is worth considering the issue of the liability of selectors at law.  It is an unarguable economic principle that the law follows commerce.  The more money there is in sport, the greater likelihood of disputation arising.

…selectors will drive themselves insane by always trying to do “what’s fair” for each individual.  For it must be realised that “fairness” is an entirely subjective thing.  What is fair to one person is very often unfair to another.

On the surface, there is no reason why this principle should not apply to team selection.  Omission from a team or squad can have enormous financial consequences for a top-line athlete.  Furthermore, from a health perspective, failure at the selection table may result in the athlete becoming morose or even depressed.  These negative feelings are made even worse if the athlete considers that the process was “unfair”.

Page   1

home

Let us look at that word “unfair” for a moment.  Everyone in sport wants to “do the right thing”.  They want to “do what’s fair”.

It is my argument that selectors will drive themselves insane by always trying to do “what’s fair” for each individual.  For it must be realised that “fairness” is an entirely subjective thing.  What is fair to one person is very often unfair to another.

It is my strong belief that rather than trying to be “fair”, selectors are better served by abiding by two basic principles:

  1. be certain;
  2. be consistent.

Clarity

What is meant by (1) is that the selectors at a very early stage lay down selection guidelines which are absolutely clear and unambiguous.  A recent example of such a policy can be found in the United States track and field team for the Sydney Olympics.  At lease one world champion failed to qualify for the 100 metres at his National Championships.  The rules were clear:

“You don’t quality at the National Championships, you don’t run at the Olympics.”

No exceptions were allowed.  This athlete did not run in that event at the Sydney Olympics, notwithstanding the fact he was then a world champion.

Consistency

In relation to (2), any selection criteria must be applied consistently across the board.  No exceptions can be allowed.  Provided the selection criteria are clear and unambiguous, there should be no need for the making of exceptions.

Different criteria apply to individual sports and team sports.  In the former, it is usually appropriate to apply objective criteria.  For instance: in order to swim at the National Championships, you must beat the qualifying time.  If more than three swimmers beat the qualifying time, the fastest three swimmers will be selected.

                                                  Continued ....