Research and analysis

Appendix 1 - Country factsheets

Published 17 July 2025

Australia

Population: 25.7 million
GDP: ≈ 1.129 GBP  / 1.553bn USD (2021)
Olympics: ranked 6th in Tokyo 2020 (GB 4th)^{[footnote 1]}, 17th in Beijing 2022^{[footnote 2]} (GB 20th)

See Beijing 2022 medal ranking table

Establishment, landscape/context

NIB: Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) was formally established on 1 July 2020.
Reason for creation: SIA was created as a direct result of the Government response to the Review of Australia’s Sports Integrity Arrangements (‘the Wood Review’) (March 2018). The centrepiece of the Wood Review recommendations is the formation of a single body to address sports integrity matters at a national level - a national sports integrity commission. The government is committed to establishing an effective national capability to protect Australian sport from integrity threats. 
Broader legal/sport landscape or framework: SIA is part of the broader National Integrity Framework, which is a set of rules that all members of a sport need to follow when it comes to their behaviour and conduct in sport.

Setup/governance

Build of: national anti-doping organisation (ASADA) established 13 March 2006.
Legal structure: Government agency established as an independent statutory authority.^{[footnote 3]}
Legal basis: Yes, Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 and Sport Integrity Australia Regulations 2020.
Stakeholders involved: There is no specific stakeholder representation within SIA.
Composition: Australian government policy requires that any government boards have at minimum 40% and maximum 60% of each gender. Appointments are also made ensuring appropriate diversity of cultural background, geography and leadership / experience.

Operational

Scope:

• anti-corruption
• anti-doping
• equality, inclusion and diversity
• sport competition manipulation
• safe sport
• improper use of drugs & medicine^{[footnote 4]}

Tasks:

• policy development
• intelligence
• investigations (primarily of doping cases)
• education, outreach and capability building

Budget: The annual budget of Sport Integrity Australia for the financial year 2023 to 2024 was just under 50m Australian dollars (AUD) (≈30 GBP). It was recently announced there will be an increase in the SIA’s budget of AUD 36.3m (GBP 22m) for the period 2023 to 2028.
FTE: SIA employs circa 158 people at its head office and another 150 in outreach programs.
Authority / mandate given: the mandate is based on law and can be found in the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 and Sport Integrity Australia Regulations 2020
Relevant links: Sport Integrity Australia - annual report 2022-2023
Sport Integrity Australia - organisational structure

---

Canada

Population: 38.25 million (2021)
GDP: ≈ 1.445bn GBP  / 1.988 USD (2021) 
Olympics: ranked 11th in Tokyo 2020 (GB 4th), 4th in Beijing 2022 (GB 20th)

See Beijing 2022 medal ranking table

Establishment, landscape/context

NIB: The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) was formally established in 1995 with a merger between the Canadian Centre for Drug-Free Sport and Fair Play Canada in 1995. The Canadian Centre for Drug-Free Sport (Canadian Anti-Doping Organization, later renamed) was founded in 1991 on the back of the Ben Johnson doping scandal at the 1988 Olympics.
Reason for creation: CCES was created with the intent was to determine how Canadian sport should be conducted in the face of widespread drug cheating in international athletics that started with the Ben Johnson scandal in 1988. 
Broader legal/sport landscape or framework: no information available **
[QUERY: followed by information??]**
The Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (OSIC) is responsible to administer the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport (UCCMS) using trauma-informed processes that are compassionate, efficient and provide fairness, respect and equity to all parties involved.
Future of Sport in Canada Commission will review the Canadian sport system and make recommendations on concrete and effective actions with respect to:

1. improving Safe Sport in Canada, including trauma-informed approaches to support sport participants in the disclosure of and healing from maltreatment; and
2. improving the sport system in Canada, including but not limited to policy, funding structures, governance, reporting, accountability, conflicts of interest, systems alignment, culture, and legal considerations.

Setup/governance

Build of: national anti-doping organisation.
Legal structure: an independent, national, not-for-profit organisation.
Legal basis: There is no specific legal basis for CCES that provides a mandate.
Stakeholders involved: There is no specific stakeholder representation within CCES but rather an expert-based board.
Composition: Australian government policy requires that any government boards have at minimum 40% and maximum 60% of each gender. Appointments are also made ensuring appropriate diversity of cultural background, geography and leadership / experience.

Operational

Scope:

• anti-doping
• equality, inclusion and diversity^{[footnote 5]}
• good governance^{[footnote 6]}
• sport competition manipulation^{[footnote 7]}
• safe sport^{[footnote 8]}

Tasks:

• policy development
• investigations (primarily of doping cases) and compliance
• education, outreach and capability building
• advocacy

Budget: The CCES annual budget for financial year 2022 to 2023 was just over 10m Canadian dollars (CAD) (≈5,9m GBP). This majority of this budget is provided by the Canadian government as well as variety of other sources, including Sport Canada, fee-for-service revenues and grants.
FTE: 45 FTE, 70 DCOs.
Authority / mandate given: none specific.
Relevant links: CCES Strategic Plan
Annual Report 2022-2023
Organisational structure [link to be added]

---

Denmark

Population: 5.86 million (2021)
GDP: ≈ 289bn GBP  / 398 USD (2021) 
Olympics: ranked 25th in Tokyo 2020 (GB 4th), N/A (no medals) in Beijing 2022 (GB 20th)

See Beijing 2022 medal ranking table

Establishment, landscape/context

NIB: Anti-Doping Denmark (ADD) was given the Secretariat for the national platform to coordinate the fight against manipulation of sports competitions by a legislative amendment in 2015. Since 2024 this secretariat sits with the Danish gambling regulator but ADD is still involved in the National Platform.
Reason for creation: No information available. Broader legal/sport landscape or framework: ADD sits in the framework of the Danish law on promoting integrity in sport.

Setup/governance

Build of: national anti-doping organisation.
Legal structure: public independent institution with reference to the Ministry of Culture.
Legal basis: Yes, Law on promoting integrity in sport.
Stakeholders involved: Ministry of Culture, national Olympic committee, Team Denmark, DGI (national sport association).

Operational

Scope:^{[footnote 9]}

• anti-doping
• sport competition manipulation
• safe sport

Tasks:

• doping control results management and prosecution in relation to the fight against doping
• information and education
• research and development in relation to the fight against doping
• international cooperation in relation to the fight against doping
• assistance to public authorities in activities related to Anti-Doping Denmark’s area of response
• investigations and intelligence

Budget: Anti-Doping Denmark’s annual budget in 2023 was 30.56 million DKK (around 3.53 million GBP) and comes mainly from the Ministry of Culture’s lottery funds.
FTE: 18 FTE, 8 DCOs.
Authority / mandate given: the mandate is based on the law on promoting integrity in sport
Relevant links: Anti-Doping Denmark - Annual report 2022

---

Estonia

Population: 1.33 million (2021)
GDP: ≈ 27 billion GBP / 37.2 billion USD 
Olympics: ranked 59th in Tokyo 2020 (GB 4th), 27th in Beijing 2022 (GB 20th)

See Beijing 2022 medal ranking table

Establishment, landscape/context

NIB: The Estonian Center for Integrity in Sports (ESTCIS) was founded in June 2019.
Reason for creation: the big abuse scandal(s) in Norwegian sport that came to light in 2017.
Broader legal/sport landscape or framework: not in place

Setup/governance

Build of: the National Anti-Doping Organization
Legal structure: independent, national, not-for-profit foundation working for and on behalf of athletes, players, coaches, parents, officials and administrators, founded by the Estonian NOC Authority, mandate given
Legal basis: none but being explored currently

Operational

Scope:

• anti-doping
• equity inclusion and diversity
• good governance
• sport competition manipulation
• compliance
• safe sport
• spectator violence
• ethics

Tasks:

• policy development
• intelligence
• investigations (primarily of doping cases)
• education, outreach and capability building

Budget: not known FTE: ESTCIS employs 8 people and DCOs
Authority / mandate given:

---

Finland

Population: 5.54 million
GDP: ≈ 216 billion GBP  / 297 billion USD (2021) 
Olympics: ranked 85th in Tokyo 2020 (GB 4th), 16th in Beijing 2022 (GB 20th)

See Beijing 2022 medal ranking table

Establishment, landscape/context

NIB: The Finnish Center for Integrity in Sports (FINCIS) was established in 2016.
Reason for creation: based on extensive studies concerning the administration of the new sports conventions in practice: a report in 2014 on the administration of ethical issues in sports in Finland and the appointment of a Finnish Advisory Board for Ethics in Sport. Also the Perumal Match Fixing cases that played out in Finland have been a factor to include a broader scope.
Broader legal/sport landscape or framework: none.

Setup/governance

Build of: Finnish Anti-Doping Agency (FINADA) established 2001 on the back of doping scandals in the World Ski Championships in 2001.
Legal structure: : NGO, registered association
Legal basis: none.
Stakeholders involved: Finnish Olympic Committee, the Finnish Paralympic Committee, the Finnish Society of Sports Medicine, and the State of Finland, represented by the Ministry of Education and Culture.

Operational

Scope:

• anti-doping
• sport competition manipulation
• safe sport
• spectator violence
• ethics
• compliance

Tasks:

• anti-doping activities
• prevention of manipulation of sports competitions
• spectator comfort and safety
• topical ethical themes

Budget: unknown but provided by the Ministry of Education and Culture’s lottery funds.
FTE: 15
Authority / mandate given:
Relevant links: Risk assessment
Environmental guidelines

---

Japan

Population: 125.7 million (2021)
GDP: ≈ 3.592 GBP  / 4.941 USD (2021)
Olympics: ranked 5th in Tokyo 2020 (GB 4th), 12th in Beijing 2022 (GB 20th)

See Beijing 2022 medal ranking table

Establishment, landscape/context

NIB: The Sport Integrity Unit of the Japan Sport Council was launched in 2014.
Reason for creation: as part of the bioprocess for the 2020 Olympic Games and the misuse of public funding by some NGB’s in 2013.

Setup/governance

Build of: a sub unit of the Japan Sport Council. A quango (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation).
Legal basis: no.

Operational

Scope:

• Anti-doping
• safe sport
• compliance

Tasks:

• Intelligence & investigations (primarily of doping cases)
• education, outreach and capability building.
• monitoring NGBs’ compliance

Budget: not known
FTE: 11 FTE, 3 PTE and 20 ad hoc experts
Relevant links: Japan Sport Council strategic plan 2023-2024
Japan Sport Association - organisational structure

QUERY - LINK BROKEN (strategic plan) - please provide correct link

---

Malta

The Authority for Integrity in Maltese Sport (AIMS) is currently being built.

The primary objective is to combat various threats to the integrity of sports, ranging from the use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs to match-fixing, manipulation of competitions, anti-money laundering, and all forms of harassment and abuse.

The Authority for Integrity in Maltese Sport aims to further reduce instances of unsporting behaviour by implementing policy, regulations and educational initiatives.

---

Luxembourg

Luxembourg’s anti-doping agency L’Agence Luxembourgeoise Antidopage (ALAD) was established in 2004.

Luxemburg is exploring the broadening of ALAD to potentially include:

• anti-corruption (TBD)
• equality, inclusion, diversity
• good governance (TBD)
• sport competition manipulation
• safe sport

---

New Zealand

Population: 5.1 million
GDP: ≈ 181 billion GBP  / 249 billion USD (2021)
Olympics: ranked 13th in Tokyo 2020 (GB 4th), 17th in Beijing 2022 (GB 20th)

See Beijing 2022 medal ranking table

Establishment, landscape/context

Sport is an important part of New Zealand society. Unfortunately there have been several bigger and smaller scandals over the past decade. An independent Integrity Working Group (IWG) found that the existing integrity system, despite best efforts, has been unable to adequately address these issues.

In July 2022, the Minister for Sport and Recreation announced that a new integrity entity would be created to strengthen and protect the integrity of the sport and recreation system in Aotearoa New Zealand. The Integrity Transition Programme was created to deliver this. The objective of the Integrity Transition Programme is to establish the Integrity Sport and Recreation Commission, the proposed new integrity entity, and set it up to deliver a safer and fairer sport and recreation experience for all through a strengthened integrity system.

The sport integrity body in New Zealand is planned to open on 1 July 2024.

Setup/governance

Build of: Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ). DFSNZ is funded by the New Zealand Government, DFSNZ is accountable to the Minister for Sport and Recreation and the New Zealand Government.
Legal structure: Crown entity^{[footnote 10]} established under the New Zealand Sports and Drug Agency Act 1994.
Authority / mandate given / legal basis: Sports Anti-Doping Act 2006, replaced the 1994 act. This act charges DFSNZ with the responsibility to implement and apply the World Anti-Doping Code in New Zealand. For the establishment of the future unit the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill form another part of its foundation.

Operational

Scope:

• anti-corruption
• anti-doping
• equality, inclusion and diversity
• sport competition manipulation
• safe sport
• ethics

Tasks:

• engagement
• education
• testing
• intelligence and investigations
• advocacy

Budget: the budget of DFSNZ (which covers only anti-doping) for the year ending 30 June 2023 was 5.35 million NZD (≈ 2,62 million GBP). This was largely provided for by the Crown and the Sport Recovery Fund.
FTE: DFSNZ employs 24 people (23.55 FTE) (2023). The new entity will take over these employees and is expected to grow to 45-50 people in the coming years depending on the needed capacity.
Authority / mandate given:
Relevant links: Drug Free Sport New Zealand annual report 2023 (PDF, 10.4 MB)

---

Switzerland

Population: 8.7 million
GDP: ≈ 582 GBP  / 800 billion USD (2021)
Olympics: ranked 24th in Tokyo 2020 (GB 4th), 8th in Beijing 2022 (GB 20th)

See Beijing 2022 medal ranking table

Establishment, landscape/context

NIB: Swiss Sport Integrity (SSI) was founded in January 2022.
Reason for creation: following an abuse scandal in Swiss gymnastics that came to light in 2021 the Swiss government took action to prevent future abuse in sport.

Setup/governance

Build of: Anti-Doping Switzerland, the national anti-doping organisation, was established in 2008.
Legal structure: Foundation
Legal basis: With regard to Anti-Doping, the legal foundations are laid down in federal-level laws; the Federal Act on the Promotion of Sport and Exercise and the corresponding Ordinance, the Federal Act on the Federal Information Systems for Sport on the one hand, and in the rules of sport under private law on the other (the World Anti-Doping Code and the Swiss Olympic Doping Statute.
For the other integrity issues covered by SSI (see scope), the bases can be found in the Statute on Ethics (PDF, 345 KB). The Statutes on Ethics in Swiss Sport are binding for all federations linked with Swiss Olympic and their direct and indirect member organisations.
Composition: The Foundation Board is composed of personalities with diverse background (medical, ethics, science, psychology, compliance, athlete, sport, legal). They cannot have any function in a national federation. There are 3 seats dedicated to organisations: Federal Office for Sport (abandoned right), Swiss Olympic (abandoned right), Swiss Olympic Athletes Commission.

Operational

Scope:

• anti-corruption
• anti-doping
• equality, inclusion and diversity
• sport competition manipulation^{[footnote 11]}
• safe sport

Tasks:

• testing and intelligence
• reporting service and ethics violations
• investigations
• prevention, training and communication
• applied research
• international cooperation

Budget: Operating budget for SSI for 2022 was ≈ CHF 6.52 million (GBP 5.54 million). At the end of 2023 it was announced that the annual budget for SSI would be be increased by CHF 1m because of the expected increase in reporting.
FTE: 47 people, ≈ 36 FTE (10 FTE for integrity, 26 FTE anti-doping) and 31 DCOs (2022)
Authority / mandate given: see legal basis.
Data-sharing: The Federal Act on the Federal Information Systems for Sport (FISSA) creates, among other things, the legal foundation for the electronic processing and exchange of personal data by Swiss Sport Integrity as part of its efforts to combat doping.
Cooperation with law enforcement: SSI only refers potentially criminal acts to law enforcement if the victims explicitly agree to this. If victims are in need of support, they are referred to whatever institution might be appropriate (psychiatric clinics, specific advice centres, medical etc).
Relevant links: Swiss Sport Integrity annual report 2022
Swiss Sport Integrity - organisational structure

2022 Beijing medal rankings table^{[footnote 12]}

Country	Number of gold medals	Total of medals
Australia	18	17
Canada	11	4
GB	19	20
Finland	16	15
Japan	12	8
New Zealand	17	18
Switzerland	8	12

---

1. Overall and per capita Australia is considered to be one of the best countries in global sport. ↩

2. See 2022 Beijing medal rankings table. ↩

3. a non-corporate Commonwealth entity under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. ↩

4. The Statement of Expectations gives greater clarity about the government’s expectations and priorities about how the agency will fulfil its statutory responsibilities. The Statement of Intent outlines Sport Integrity Australia’s priorities and approach to achieving the goals and obligations referred to in the minister’s Statement of Expectations. ↩

5. The CCES conducts work in these areas (i.e. governance education, trans inclusion policy, etc.), but is not specifically mandated to monitor compliance to a code for these items, like it is for anti-doping. ↩

6. The CCES conducts work in these areas (i.e. governance education, trans inclusion policy, etc.), but is not specifically mandated to monitor compliance to a code for these items, like it is for anti-doping. ↩

7. The CCES conducts work in these areas (i.e. governance education, trans inclusion policy, etc.), but is not specifically mandated to monitor compliance to a code for these items, like it is for anti-doping. ↩

8. The CCES conducts work in these areas (i.e. governance education, trans inclusion policy, etc.), but is not specifically mandated to monitor compliance to a code for these items, like it is for anti-doping. ↩

9. The scope is limited to team Denmark athletes. ↩

10. A crown entity is a highly independent form of organisation that report directly to the relevant minister but the minister can not actively influence the entity. ↩

11. Betting as such is not covered by the rules, however, should a person manipulate a competition in any kind or form, that would be covered by “unsporting behaviour”. ↩

12. There is no official method of ranking countries based on medals won at the Olympic Games because this is prohibited by the IOC charter: Chapter 1, section 6 states that: The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries. Chapter 5, section 57, expressly prohibits the IOC from producing an official ranking: The IOC and the OCOG shall not draw up any global ranking per country. Although not recognised by the IOC, there a two generally accepted methods of ranking countries by means of medals won as reflected in this table: 1 the number of gold medals and 2 the total number of medals. ↩