Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42100117›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in sports and active living2026

The sport volunteering paradox: concerns from a legal and governance perspective, but the irony remains.

Charles Mountifield, Stirling Sharpe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Charles MountifieldUC Research Institute for Sport and Exercise (UCRISE), University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Stirling SharpeUC Research Institute for Sport and Exercise (UCRISE), University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Australia, volunteers represent a ubiquitous-and critical-feature of organised sport. Sporting events, be they the Olympic Games or a grassroots football match, require the services of a human resource whose engagement, in turn, necessitates consideration from a legal and governance standpoint. For the organisations administering sporting activities, however, volunteers represent an anomaly in an hierarchical sport system. Volunteers are often subject to the whim and caprice of institutions deficient in processes for engaging an unpaid workforce. Issues concerning employment terms and volunteer rights have proved contentious, especially in the community sport sector. Although volunteer numbers have fluctuated, legal problems ensue, resulting in various "injuries" and other considerations relating to the treatment of sport volunteers. There is a dilemma for sport organisations: the governance model for community sport is flawed due to the paradox between top-down policy edicts and the ability of volunteers to manage themselves by virtue of their non-professional roles. By way of a narrative literature review, this paper identifies issues impacting sport organisations and points to the irony that volunteers are unlikely to be able to fulfil expectations based on existing governance structures.

Indexed as

employmentgovernanceinsurancesportvolunteers

Identifiers

PMID42100117
PMCPMC13144156

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.