Ethics and integrity in sport: ethical frameworks applied to contemporary issues (drugs in sport, gender equity, race and indigenous participation, gambling, technology, violence), the role of sport governance

What this dot point is asking

QCAA wants you to apply ethical frameworks to specific contemporary issues in Australian sport, and to explain how sport governance protects integrity. The marks come from naming and correctly applying at least two frameworks to a precise issue, using real Australian examples, and reaching a justified judgment rather than offering opinion.

The answer

Ethical frameworks

• Deontology (rule-based). Right action is following the rules, duties, and principles, regardless of consequences. A deontologist says doping is wrong because it breaks the rules of fair competition.
• Consequentialism (outcome-based). Right action produces the best consequences. Drug testing is justified because it reduces overall harm and protects fair competition.
• Virtue ethics. Right action is what a person of good character would do, focusing on integrity, courage, sportsmanship, and humility. Shaking hands with an opponent after a hard contest reflects virtue.
• Justice and fairness. Equal treatment, fair distribution of opportunity, and recognition of disadvantage. Central to gender, racial, and disability equity in sport.

Contemporary ethical issues

• Drugs in sport. Performance-enhancing substances (anabolic steroids, EPO, growth hormone, peptides, stimulants) are prohibited under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code and enforced in Australia by Sport Integrity Australia. Therapeutic Use Exemptions raise the question of where legitimate medical use ends. The Essendon supplements case is a well-known Australian example of the integrity risks of poorly governed supplement programs.
• Gender equity. Pay gaps between male and female athletes in the same code, uneven media coverage, and differences in pathways and infrastructure. The participation of trans and intersex athletes in elite sport is contested and policies vary by code.
• Race and Indigenous participation. Racism in sport (the booing of Adam Goodes is a frequently cited example), strong Indigenous representation in elite playing ranks but lower representation in coaching and administration, and Indigenous-led development programs that build pathways and cultural safety.
• Gambling. Rapid growth of sports betting, integration of betting promotion into broadcasts, and the disproportionate harm to young men who are also the marketing target. Public reviews have recommended phased advertising restrictions during live sport.
• Technology. Carbon-plated running shoes, high-tech swimsuits (banned in 2010 after a record-breaking era), aerodynamic cycling equipment, and recovery technology with cost barriers, all raising fairness and access questions.
• Violence in sport. Concussion management and long-term brain injury, the line between legitimate physical play and dangerous play, crowd behaviour, and athlete conduct off the field.

For each issue, the strongest responses apply two frameworks. Doping, for example, is wrong on deontology (breaks the rules), consequentialism (unfair results and health harm), and virtue (poor character).

The role of sport governance

Australian sport governance involves several bodies:

• Sport Integrity Australia (SIA). The national integrity body (anti-doping, anti-match-fixing, broader integrity), established in 2020.
• The Australian Sports Commission and the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS). Sport policy, participation, and elite athlete development.
• The National Sports Tribunal. Independent dispute resolution.
• Code-specific integrity units. AFL, NRL, Cricket Australia, and others run their own integrity functions.

Governance roles include setting rules, investigating breaches, sanctioning athletes and clubs, educating about integrity, and reforming structures when ethical problems demand it. The central debate is effectiveness: well-funded, independent, transparent governance deters and detects misconduct better than weak governance.

Examples in context

Example 1. A QCE student chooses doping in cycling as their contemporary issue. They apply deontology (the athlete agreed to the rules and breached a clear duty) and consequentialism (doping spreads, harms health, and damages the sport's credibility), then evaluate the governance response (WADA Code, Sport Integrity Australia testing and sanctions). The judgment is that strong, independent anti-doping is ethical because it satisfies both frameworks and protects clean athletes.

Example 2. A student analyses gambling advertising during AFL broadcasts. They apply consequentialism (large-scale social harm from problem gambling, concentrated among young men who are also the marketing target) and justice (a vulnerable group is being targeted), then assess the governance debate over advertising restrictions during live sport. The response makes an explicit judgment about whether current self-regulation adequately protects the public.

Try this

Q1. Define deontology and consequentialism, and give one sporting example of each applied to the same ethical issue. [4 marks]

• Cue. Deontology = rule and duty based; consequentialism = outcome based. Example: doping is wrong because it breaks the rules (deontology) and because it spreads and harms health and fairness (consequentialism).

Q2. Explain two roles of sport governance bodies in maintaining integrity, naming one Australian body. [4 marks]

• Cue. Sport Integrity Australia. Roles such as setting and enforcing rules, investigating and sanctioning breaches, and educating athletes, with a sentence each on how the role supports integrity.

Q3. Apply virtue ethics and justice to the issue of gender pay equity in a chosen Australian sport, and make a justified judgment. [6 marks]

• Cue. Justice (equal pay for comparable contribution, recognition of historical disadvantage) and virtue (valuing and respecting women's contribution to the sport). Reach an explicit judgment with reasons, ideally noting the trade-offs (revenue differences versus equity obligations).