Improvements to British Powerlifting Structure

I strongly support this motion. In my view, this kind of structural investment is desperately needed if British Powerlifting wants to keep improving and operate sustainably.

Through volunteering on the technical side, I have seen first-hand how resource-constrained the organisation can be. A lot of important work relies on a small number of critical people giving a huge amount of their own time, often quietly and behind the scenes, just to keep things working. That level of commitment is admirable, but it is not a stable long-term operating model.

As the sport grows, this kind of change also becomes inevitable. Governance, safeguarding, compliance, international team management, event delivery, sponsorship, performance pathways, member services, and external reporting all become more demanding as an organisation matures. At some point, a serious national governing body cannot rely entirely on voluntary capacity for work that requires consistency, accountability, and continuity.

In that sense, I think it is better to make this transition now, deliberately and sustainably, rather than waiting until the organisation is forced into it by burnout, service failures, or governance pressure. These roles would help provide stability and reduce the risk of key people stepping away with no clear operational backup.

This also feels aligned with the direction of travel for British Powerlifting as it works towards higher levels of Sport England governance. Paid operational support is common in serious sporting organisations, and I would expect this kind of structure to be viewed positively from a governance perspective because it shows that British Powerlifting is thinking seriously about resilience, continuity, and long-term organisational stability.

Volunteers will always be essential to the sport, but paid support in the right areas should make volunteering more sustainable, not less important. For that reason, I think this proposal is a sensible, necessary, and probably inevitable step forward.

I have significant concerns about this motion, primarily around the lack of detail and rigour with which it has been presented. For proposals that carry this level of financial commitment, and that seek to salarise roles which have historically been fulfilled on a voluntary basis, I do not feel the motion provides nearly enough substance for members to make an informed decision.

Whilst I accept that growing demands on the organisation may well justify some form of remuneration for these roles, the case as presented is vague and difficult to scrutinise. The rationale leans heavily on broad statements without offering any tangible targets, measurable outcomes, or evidence of a prior financial review. For example, the CEO role lists "boosting the experience of the non-international lifter by attracting better partnerships" as an objective, but offers no explanation of what that means in practice or how success would be measured.

I am also concerned about accountability, particularly regarding the CEO position. As currently proposed, there is no clear line of oversight: the role attends board meetings without voting rights but does not appear to report to anyone with meaningful authority to hold the position to account. A salaried CEO without a defined reporting structure is a significant governance risk for any organisation, let alone one operating in the public sporting interest.

My view is that this motion should not be passed in its current form. Before any of these positions are created, I would like to see a formal business review conducted, examining where the organisation is currently losing money, what gaps in capacity are genuinely costing the federation, and what tangible return on investment each proposed role would be expected to generate.

As an alternative to fixed salaries, I would suggest the board consider an hourly rate model across these roles, with work logged, documented, and regular reports submitted to the board. This would provide the flexibility the organisation needs whilst ensuring there is a clear and auditable record of the value each role is delivering back to the federation.

I would also like to raise a separate concern regarding the Head of Performance role. I find it difficult to understand how the creation of this position would translate into more medals at an international level. The quality of the team we take to these events is ultimately determined by the athletes themselves and the coaches who work with them directly. It is not immediately clear to me what a Head of Performance adds to that process, how they would interact with existing head coaches, or what measurable difference their involvement would make to international results. Given that this role carries a budget of £25k per annum, I think the board has an obligation to explain this far more clearly before members are asked to vote in favour.

I am not opposed to the principle of investing in these areas. I am opposed to doing so without the rigour and transparency that a decision of this size demands.

Hi Tarrin,

I think you make fair points around transparency, scrutiny and accountability. I agree that, if these roles are created, British Powerlifting should be clear about what success looks like, how performance will be reviewed, and where each role sits within the reporting structure.

Where I would probably separate the issues is that the principle of paid operational roles and the need for better performance reporting are not, in my view, mutually exclusive. Whether British Powerlifting should remunerate key roles is primarily an operational sustainability question. The transparency, targets and accountability around those roles are governance questions. Both matter, but I do not think the second should necessarily prevent progress on the first.

British Powerlifting is already moving towards a higher standard of governance as it works closer to the Sport England tiers. That direction of travel is significant. Greater transparency, clearer reporting, better role definition and more formal accountability are all likely to become unavoidable anyway as the organisation matures. In that sense, I see this motion less as a final destination and more as a necessary step towards a more sustainable operating model.

I also think there is a slight visibility problem here. If you are not close to the administrative side of the organisation, it is easy to underestimate how much work is actually being carried by a very small number of people. I fully understand the argument that greater transparency is needed, because ultimately, if members cannot see what is happening, they cannot properly assess what is happening. Initiatives like Top Up Tuesday help give some visibility into the work going on behind the scenes, but even then I do not think most members will have a full sense of the time commitment involved.

From what I have seen over the last year or so, the current CEO-type workload is not a small voluntary contribution. It is much closer to a full-time operational role being carried for free. Frankly, I am slightly flabbergasted that anyone is willing to take on that level of responsibility unpaid, especially when so much of the work is administrative, time-sensitive, politically exposed, and largely invisible unless something goes wrong.

The problem with an under-resourced volunteer structure is that, when nobody is clearly accountable for a task, the accountability does not disappear. It simply rolls upwards. In practice, that means the most senior person often ends up carrying the issue, whether or not it was ever realistic for them to do so. At the moment, that means people like Charlie, and it will have meant similar pressure on people in equivalent senior positions previously. That is not a sustainable model; it is a dependency risk disguised as volunteerism.

The same applies to the performance side. At the moment, the Performance Director function seems to be fulfilled largely through a committee-style structure, when what is probably needed is a clear leader with direct responsibility for that area. That does not mean one person magically creates medals, of course, but it does mean someone owns the strategy, coaching pathways, head coach coordination, standards, follow-through and long-term performance structure. Without a directly responsible individual, important work can easily become diffuse, inconsistent or dependent on whoever happens to have spare capacity.

The reality is that British Powerlifting is now a sizeable national sporting organisation. Its revenue may be around the £1m mark, but because of the scale of its volunteer network, events, international teams, governance duties, safeguarding expectations and member services, it has an operational footprint far larger than that headline figure suggests. That is precisely why relying almost entirely on voluntary capacity for critical organisational functions feels unsustainable.

I also think the proposed sums should be viewed in that context. They are a significant change compared with British Powerlifting’s historic operating model, but they are still modest relative to the responsibility being placed on these roles. In the private sector, roles carrying comparable responsibility, accountability and time pressure would typically command far more than is being proposed here. To me, that makes this feel like a cautious stepping stone rather than an excessive professionalisation of the organisation.

On the transparency point specifically, I think there is also a practical route for members to raise feedback outside of this motion. My experience is that the people involved in running British Powerlifting are generally responsive when members contact them directly with constructive suggestions. So, if there are concerns around reporting, performance measures, governance structure or visibility, I would encourage those to be raised directly as well.

I suppose that is partly what this discussion is for, and I think your comment is valuable in that respect. I just think it is worth drawing a distinction between the underlying premise of the motion — whether British Powerlifting needs paid operational capacity — and the procedural improvements that should sit alongside it. The latter should absolutely be improved, but I am not convinced it should block the former.
So I agree that the board should provide more clarity around success measures, reporting lines and performance review. That would strengthen the proposal and give members more confidence. But I would be reluctant to reject the motion purely because those details are not yet perfect, because the underlying problem is real: too much important work is currently dependent on too few people giving too much unpaid time.
For me, the sensible position is to support the move towards paid operational support, while also expecting British Powerlifting to improve the governance, transparency and accountability around those roles as part of implementation.

Hi Andrew,
Thank you for such a thorough and considered response. I think we are actually more aligned than my initial comment may have suggested.
I agree with you entirely that these roles need financial support. The workload being carried by a small number of people on a voluntary basis is unsustainable, and I have no doubt that the operational burden on those in senior positions is far greater than most members appreciate. That is not the source of my concern.
What I am cautious about is voting to approve specific salary figures, attached to loosely defined roles, without any supporting data to justify those numbers. The motion asks members to commit to £65k per annum of recurring expenditure, and the rationale provided amounts to a few bullet points. Whether or not the principle is sound, I do not think that is a sufficient basis for a formal vote.
To use your framing, I have no issue with the destination. I just think the proposal needs more work before we commit to it. A clearer case for how each figure was arrived at, what success looks like, and how each role sits within the reporting structure would give members the confidence to vote in favour meaningfully rather than on trust alone.
So I suppose my position is: I want this to pass, but I want it to pass with enough detail behind it that British Powerlifting is set up to implement it well, hold these roles to account, and demonstrate value back to the membership.
Best wishes,
Tarrin

I agree that there should be paid operational support, especially for the admin roles if that is where a significant amount of money is being lost for the federation, and some of those roles are not sustainable with the amount of unpaid time people are having to put into it. Adding all 3 roles and salaries into the same motion has made this difficult to discuss. I agree with Tarrin's comments and there should be more transparency on measurable outcomes. I would also like to know the reasoning for specifically these 3 roles that have been added to the motion, and those specific salaries, before being able to vote on this objectively. As Tarrin mentioned, voting to approve 65k in salaries without clear detail of how this is measured makes this a trust exercise rather than a well balanced reasoning to vote in favour.

I’m quite concerned about this motion, it is a major turning point for the organization to start employing paid staff. We are really missing a detailed roadmap of the direction of travel over the next 2-3 years. As an example, I think the case for increased competition entry fees has been made and we are now seeing people willing to pay that bit more for an improved experience. I don’t think that the case has been made for a spike in membership fees to fund things that for the most part are already happening under the existing model. We do now face more of a threat from other organizations at divisional level who are hosting events(often at a very similar standard) which are attracting good numbers, we should not ignore this. Honestly, if we are going to pay a good amount of for a role it would be to someone(on perhaps a contract basis)who has a proven track record of obtaining funding for another sporting body to try and help us unlock the potential of NGB status. Until this problem is solved I feel like we are going to remain in a position where we’re lagging behind other sports NGBs. Tarrin makes some excellent points regarding oversight- board minutes or lack thereof have been a source of significant friction within BP in the past, we’d do well not to let history repeat itself.
This motion needs a lot more supporting documentation if it’s to be taken seriously.