The Netherlands has opened consultation on a law to create Integrity in Sports Netherlands, uniting anti-doping, match-fixing intelligence and safeguarding casework, reflecting a wider shift to stronger oversight after high-profile misconduct cases.
The Dutch government has opened a consultation on a new Integrity in Sports Act which would create a single, independent integrity centre for sport, Integere Sport Nederland (ISN).
The new body would bring doping control, match-fixing intelligence and safe-sport casework under one roof. The consultation runs from September 1 to the end of October.
State Secretary Judith Tielen (Health, Welfare and Sport) said the aim is to ensure sport is “fair and socially safe,” citing recent cases of misconduct across multiple disciplines.
Under the draft, ISN would combine the Dopingautoriteit and the Centrum Veilige Sport Nederland (CVSN), investigate reports relating to doping, match-fixing and socially unsafe behaviour, and advise on follow-up.
Until ISN is formally established, the existing bodies remain the first point of contact.
After the consultation closes, responses will be reviewed and the bill can be amended before Cabinet approval, referral to the Council of State for advice and then submission to the House of Representatives.
Where ISN would sit
In practice, any new centre will need to dovetail with the Instituut Sportrechtspraak (ISR), which already hears disciplinary cases for more than 80 federations, including matters of doping, match-fixing and transgressive behaviour.
How responsibilities are divided in the final law will be watched closely by clubs and national governing bodies.
The move also comes amid a shifting integrity landscape. In June 2025 the Public Prosecution Service (OM) said it would stop actively detecting match-fixing, prioritising capacity elsewhere, while the gambling regulator KSA reported that potential match-fixing alerts more than doubled in 2024 (13, up from 6 in 2023).
Those trends underline the need for clear roles between sport, regulators and law enforcement.
International parallels
Several countries have already consolidated integrity functions into a single, independent body.
Australia centralised its approach in 2020 with the launch of Sport Integrity Australia, which merged ASADA, the National Integrity of Sport Unit and related functions under one roof. The agency administers a National Integrity Framework that spans anti-doping, competition manipulation and safeguarding.
Canada has moved in a similar direction; from April 1, 2025, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) administers the new Canadian Safe Sport Program, replacing the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (OSIC)/Abuse-Free Sport mechanism introduced in 2022.
New Zealand created an independent commission through the Integrity Sport and Recreation Act 2023, tasked with handling integrity and safeguarding across sport and active recreation.
By contrast, the United Kingdom maintains a distributed model. UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) leads on doping; safeguarding guidance is delivered through bodies such as the NSPCC’s Child Protection in Sport Unit; and betting integrity is coordinated by the Gambling Commission’s Sports Betting Intelligence Unit (SBIU) alongside the Sports Betting Integrity Forum. Case adjudication typically sits with Sport Resolutions’ National Anti-Doping Panel and other specialist tribunals.
Safe-sport cases and doping history
The government’s push follows heightened scrutiny of social safety in Dutch sport, notably the 2020 gymnastics revelations which led to multiple investigations and disciplinary cases.
The Royal Dutch Gymnastics Federation halted training at the national centre and stood down several coaches pending an investigation after former athletes reported intimidation and physical abuse, including high-profile figures linked to the women’s programme.
An independent inquiry by research firm Verinorm culminated in the April 2021 report Ongelijke leggers (“Unequal Bars”), which documented systemic psychological transgressive behaviour at the elite level; the federation issued a public apology and outlined aftercare and compensation for victims.
Parliament later debated the findings, which included accounts of isolation, humiliation, weight-related remarks and even deliberate failure to catch athletes during exercises. Disciplinary follow-up has included sanctions such as a conditional one-year suspension for coach Nico Zijp, while other cases sparked legal disputes over staff eligibility in the run-up to Tokyo 2020.
On doping, the Netherlands has had its share of high-profile episodes – most prominently the cycling cases linked to the former Rabobank setup, including Michael Boogerd’s 2013 admission of EPO use, cortisone and blood transfusions — reminders of why robust, independent systems matter.
