Only your org and invited staff log in here.
Players, parents, coaches & officials.
We support 30+ sports and keep adding more.
Almost every youth sports organization agrees that adults around children should be screened. Far fewer can say, on a given Saturday, exactly which adults are cleared and which are not. That gap is where safeguarding actually fails — not in the policy, in the record-keeping.
Your governing body or insurer usually sets the requirement, and you should follow whichever is stricter. In practice most organizations land on screening anyone with regular, unsupervised access to athletes:
The person most likely to slip through is not a coach. It is the volunteer who was “only helping out for a weekend” three seasons ago and has been there ever since.
Someone is given a team in August and their check clears in October. For two months they had access nobody had verified. This happens because inviting a coach and screening them are separate processes in most organizations — often separate systems entirely.
Checks lapse. If the expiry date lives in a spreadsheet nobody opens, a coach carries on for a season with clearance that expired last year. You will discover this at the worst possible moment.
The check was done. Nobody can find the evidence, because the person who ran it left the committee and it was in their email. Safeguarding is judged on what you can demonstrate, not on what you did.
“Which adults will be with children this Saturday, and is every one of them cleared?” If answering that takes more than a minute, the gap is in your records rather than your policy.
A background check is a point-in-time record. It tells you what was on file on the day it ran; it does not tell you what happens afterwards, and it is not a substitute for supervision ratios, a code of conduct, a reporting route or the culture that makes people comfortable raising concerns. Treat it as one control among several rather than the whole of safeguarding.
Background checks sit on the same staff record as roles and team assignments, so clearance status is visible at the point you are granting access rather than in a separate system. Expiry is on the record, and first-aid and safeguarding certificates are stored alongside in Documents. What is required is still your governing body’s decision — Ligue is where you run the process and hold the evidence.
Follow whichever is stricter of your governing body and your insurer. Most organizations screen anyone with regular unsupervised access to athletes: coaches, assistants, team managers, regular volunteers, and officials the organization appoints.
Your governing body usually sets the interval, commonly every one to three years. What matters more than the interval is that the expiry date is visible before it lapses rather than after.
No. It is a point-in-time record and one control among several. Supervision ratios, a code of conduct, a clear reporting route and a culture where concerns get raised all matter at least as much.
Who was checked, when, the outcome, and the expiry date where one applies. That is what a governing body, insurer or parent will ask you to demonstrate, and it needs to survive a committee handover.
That is your policy decision and your governing body may set it for you. The practical point is that you should be able to see that a check is pending at the moment you assign them a team, not afterwards.
Formats, ratings, court rotation and scoring that survives growth.
The questions that matter, and the traps in a demo.
What to ask, what to leave off, and the mistakes that lose sign-ups.
Register in minutes, or book a walkthrough and we'll tailor it to the way you already run things.