UK Sport defends Sport Org as governing bodies raise oversight concerns

UK Sport has defended the role of Sport Org after Olympic and Paralympic governing bodies raised questions about the new organisation's remit and accountability, the Guardian reported on Thursday. Chief executive Sally Munday addressed sports leaders in a 75-minute video conference last Friday, rejecting suggestions that UK Sport intended to bring all sports into the organisation.

Watch the highlights:

Sport Org developed out of British Curling and brings its leadership and performance expertise to curling, para-curling, para table tennis and squash. Its work is due to extend to bobsleigh and skeleton from 2030. UK Sport told the Guardian that the arrangements for squash and para table tennis had already helped those programmes gain access to public funding.

A separate proposal would give Sport Org responsibility for GB Snowsport's high-performance programme and the allocation of £12.5m in lottery funding ahead of the 2030 Winter Olympics. According to the Guardian, GB Snowsport opposes that change and wants to retain control of its elite programme. Its athletes won two of Britain's five gold medals at the Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. The proposed transfer remains a point of dispute, rather than a completed change.

During the conference, governing bodies questioned why Sport Org's chief executive position had not been advertised and why its board had not been reconstituted. Nigel Holl, the former British Curling chief who now leads Sport Org, answered the governance question, the newspaper reported. Munday also reassured participants that the organisation was not intended to intervene automatically in sports or eventually encompass most of them.

The Guardian subsequently spoke to more than six sports leaders and reported continuing concerns about oversight and the scope of the changes. Some questioned why shared services such as legal support, communications and human resources were not the main focus of savings. Others raised concerns about how performance programmes operated through Sport Org would be assessed by UK Sport.

In its response, UK Sport described Sport Org as an independent organisation that can run performance programmes on behalf of governing bodies where there is a clear benefit. It said the aim was to improve expertise, efficiency and organisational resilience around athletes. UK Sport stressed that Sport Org would neither replace national governing bodies nor offer a suitable model for every sport.