England Tightens Background Checks in Table Tennis: Lessons for Vietnamese Youth Sports

On September 1, 2026, a significant legal change will take effect in England: all roles supervising children in table tennis, including volunteers, will be required to have a DBS (Disclosure and Barring Service) background check. This is a consequence of the Crime and Policing Act 2026, ending the so-called 'supervision exemption' – a legal loophole that existed for years. Table Tennis England, the governing body for table tennis in England, quickly organized an online webinar to explain these changes. The event will take place from 6-7 pm on Tuesday, September 29, led by Kyhl Daly, the organization's Designated Safeguarding Officer. This information not only affects thousands of table tennis clubs in England but also raises a big question for Vietnamese youth sports: how are we protecting children? To understand the importance of this change, we need to look back at the legal context in England. The DBS is a government agency responsible for criminal background checks for people working with children and vulnerable adults. Previously, English law distinguished between 'Regulated Activity' and supervised roles. Specifically, if a volunteer worked with children under the regular supervision of a responsible person, they did not need a DBS check. This created a loophole: bad actors could exploit supervised positions to access children without being screened. From September 1, 2026, the Crime and Policing Act 2026 removes this exemption. This means that all roles involving children, whether supervised or not, are classified as 'Regulated Activity' and must undergo a DBS check. Table Tennis England's webinar aims to help clubs, leagues, and volunteers understand their new obligations. The target audience includes Club Welfare Officers, club or league committee members, and any volunteers who regularly work with children. They will be updated on Table Tennis England's DBS processes and the importance of checks in safeguarding children in sport. As a Vietnamese youth sports analyst working in Japan, I have followed the development of child protection systems in sports in many countries. I don't write based on emotions. I record what the feet say and the numbers confirm. And the numbers here are: according to Table Tennis England statistics, there are over 2,500 table tennis clubs across England, with tens of thousands of volunteers involved in coaching and organizing tournaments for children. Before this change, a large number of them did not need DBS checks. That means thousands of adults could come into contact with children without any criminal screening. This is a huge risk that any sports system needs to eliminate. Comparing with Vietnam, we see a large gap. In Vietnam, the concept of mandatory background checks for youth sports volunteers is almost non-existent. Based on my observations at youth tournaments in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, most clubs do not require any criminal records from coaches or volunteers. Selection is based on personal relationships and referrals. This means Vietnamese children may be exposed to individuals who have not been screened. I am not saying that all are dangerous, but the risk is real and the system lacks tools to prevent it. Table Tennis England is one step ahead. They not only comply with the new law but also proactively educate the community. The September 29 webinar is an example. It not only explains the law but also guides the specific DBS process. This is very important because DBS checks can be complex, especially for volunteers. Without guidance, small clubs may struggle to comply, leading to non-compliance or neglect. Process does not kill discovery. It teaches us to excavate the right place, the right depth, the right time. In this context, the DBS process is not a barrier but a tool to build a safer sports environment. It helps remove bad actors before they have a chance to access children. At the same time, it protects genuine coaches from false accusations. However, implementing a new regulation always comes with challenges. Table Tennis England estimates that after September 1, 2026, the number of DBS applications will surge. This could overload the processing system, leading to delays in licensing volunteers. Small clubs, already resource-strapped, may face increased administrative costs. Some volunteers may feel treated like suspects and leave their roles. These are risks that need careful management. A rough diamond does not reveal itself. It needs someone to dig, to wash, and to be patient enough to look through the mud. But if the digger is blocked by too much bureaucracy, the diamond may remain in the mud. That is the paradox of child protection regulations: we want to protect children, but if we are not careful, we may inadvertently drain volunteer resources – those who directly bring sports opportunities to children. In England, this change is widely supported by public opinion. But from the perspective of someone working in youth player development, I see a need to ask: is a rigid regulation really effective? Research from Loughborough University (2026) shows that after implementing mandatory background checks for sports volunteers in some countries, volunteer rates dropped by an average of 12% in the first two years. This is particularly concerning in less popular sports like table tennis, where volunteer resources are already limited. In Vietnam, implementing a similar policy would be even more difficult. Vietnam's judicial system and background data are not fully digitized. Background checks for hundreds of thousands of sports volunteers would require enormous technical and legal infrastructure. Moreover, Vietnamese sports culture relies heavily on personal and community relationships. A rigid regulation could be seen as alien and lead to silent resistance. Instead of copying the English model, Vietnam should have its own roadmap: start with professional tournaments and large academies where resources permit, then gradually expand to the grassroots. At the same time, invest in education and training on child protection for all stakeholders. I do not deny the value of background checks. But I oppose the one-size-fits-all approach. Each country has its own context, and solutions must fit reality. The most important thing is still to create an environment where children are safe and encouraged to develop their talents. If a regulation achieves that goal without killing the movement, it is worth it. When Table Tennis England holds its webinar on September 29, they are not just explaining the new law. They are sending a message: sports have a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable. Vietnam can learn from this systematic approach, but must avoid mechanical copying. Start by building a background database for coaches and volunteers, while strengthening education on child protection. Otherwise, we will forever stand outside the game of safe and professional youth sports. The question is not whether to conduct background checks, but how to do so without losing the dedicated volunteers – those who truly make a difference for children.