The Athlete’s Co-operative’s victory can be a blank canvas to deliver for both men and women - Alice Soper

Double Olympic champion rower Mahe Drysdale is now working as part of the Athletes Co-operative. Photo / Warren Buckland, Hawke's Bay Today

OPINION

Last week, the Athlete’s Co-operative won a major victory in its step towards collective bargaining for the rights of our Olympians.

The Employment Relations Authority found that High Performance Sport New Zealand did have to engage with this registered trade union, despite their protests that they didn’t currently employ any of its members. The implications of this decision could lead to a massive shake-up in how our Olympic sports are administered and provide the blueprint for future athlete collectives.

Rowing and cycling are the two sports currently represented by The Athlete’s Co-operative. These are two codes whose recent reviews determined that their sport prioritises medals over athlete wellbeing. This attitude doesn’t just appear in a vacuum. What these sports have in common, beyond failing to provide safe environments for their participants, is that their athletes are funded by High Performance Sport New Zealand. While it may be their sport’s name on the athlete’s agreement, the deliverables attached to these payouts have High Performance Sport New Zealand’s fingerprints all over them.

If you wanted to break the cycle of endless reviews in our sporting community, of course you would go to the root of the issue. So High Performance Sport New Zealand should have been expecting this knock on their door. They had appeared to lay out the welcome mat with their promises to “empower and enhance the voice of athletes within the high performance sport system”. However, they were only happy to support this on their terms, which saw the assembly of reference groups.

As someone who has spent time as a volunteer in one of these groups in my own sport, I understand why this forum didn’t feel fit for purpose. When such a group is assembled, it is generally by invitation. This means limited representation as it is those known and palatable to the establishment that will be chosen to participate. The agenda is also tightly controlled. Often set without input from participants, laying out what is and isn’t up for discussion.

Even after directing what is to be spoken about and who gets to speak on it, there is also no assurance that this voice will be heard. Recommendations will be shared but there is no mechanism to ensure they are adopted. Simply put, it’s a box-ticking exercise. A way to make people feel they are being heard without actually having to listen.

The people involved in the Athlete’s Co-operative know this all too well, as this was the path they took before opting to unionise. When it became clear that things weren’t going to progress within this model, they adopted another one. One with a well-established legal framework and independence at its foundation.

What is unique about this new athletic union is what should excite those passionate about equity in sports.

Unlike other associations, the formation of this group happens at a point in which women and men are both professional. Rugby, cricket, football and netball have all had to rapidly retrofit their player associations in response to the development of the other half of their game. Unsurprisingly, this has led to teething problems and at times, the inadvertent replication of the systemic sexism of the sport they negotiate with.

What would professional sport look like if it was designed for the needs of both women and men from the start? That is the blank canvas The Athlete’s Co-operative is painting on.

The actions of the co-chairs, Kirstie Klingenberg and Mahé Drysdale, won’t just raise the bar for their sports but for all the players’ associations. If we have learnt anything from the stack of reviews littering the desks at High Performance Sport New Zealand, it’s that we are well overdue for this reset.