They say they would expect to be informed so they could assess risk
When institutions design safeguarding measures in secret, they must reckon with a quiet paradox: the same discretion meant to protect the vulnerable can leave other guardians blind to the very risks they are responsible for managing. At West Ham United, restrictions placed on co-owner David Sullivan following a 2023 FA investigation into allegations of sexually exploitative behaviour were never communicated to London Stadium, the body responsible for the safety of staff and the public on match days, nor to the women's team those restrictions were meant to shield. The episode asks an old and uncomfortable question — not only who holds power, but who holds knowledge, and whether the architecture of protection is itself sound.
- Multiple women have accused Sullivan of decades of sexually exploitative and predatory behaviour, including pressuring them for sex during business meetings — allegations he categorically denies.
- The FA brokered a quiet agreement in 2023 restricting Sullivan's one-on-one access to academy and women's team players, yet the stadium operator, the women's team, and the Women's Super League were never told it existed.
- London Stadium has now written formally to West Ham, the FA, and local authorities demanding to understand why it was excluded from a process directly relevant to its duty of care over staff and the public.
- West Ham defends the silence as deliberate safeguarding practice — keeping the circle of knowledge small to protect the integrity of the process — while Sullivan dismisses the restriction as a meaningless formality he accepted for a quiet life.
- The breakdown exposes a structural fault line: whether tightly held information genuinely protects people, or whether it simply concentrates risk in the hands of those who were never told to look for it.
London Stadium, the company that operates West Ham United's ground, has revealed it was never informed of safeguarding restrictions placed on club co-owner David Sullivan — and has now written to West Ham, the Football Association, and local authorities demanding to know why.
The restrictions followed an FA safeguarding investigation opened in 2023, prompted by allegations from multiple women that Sullivan, 77, had engaged in sexually exploitative and predatory behaviour across his business career — including pressuring women for sex during professional meetings. Sullivan, who built his fortune in pornography, newspapers, and football, categorically denies all allegations, saying they never happened and were unrelated to his time at West Ham.
What emerged from the investigation was a temporary agreement: Sullivan would not meet academy or women's team players one-on-one while a historical anonymous complaint was being resolved. A safeguarding group comprising the club, the FA, and the local authority arranged this — but London Stadium, responsible for day-to-day operations and the safety of staff, contractors, and the public, was excluded entirely. So too were the women's team and the Women's Super League.
London Stadium says it would have expected to be informed so it could assess risk and put protective measures in place. West Ham, in response, argues that limiting who knows about a safeguarding arrangement is standard practice — agreed with independent external bodies — to preserve the integrity of the process. Sullivan, for his part, frames the restriction as a voluntary and inconsequential agreement, noting he had never met such players one-on-one in sixteen years anyway.
The FA declined to comment in detail. But the episode leaves an unresolved tension at the heart of institutional safeguarding: whether protecting information and protecting people are always the same thing — or whether, sometimes, they work against each other.
London Stadium, the company that owns and operates West Ham United's ground, has discovered it was kept in the dark about safeguarding restrictions placed on the club's co-owner David Sullivan. The stadium operator says it should have been told, and it has now written to West Ham, the Football Association, and local authorities demanding to know why it was excluded from the process.
The restrictions themselves came about after the FA launched a safeguarding investigation in 2023. Multiple women have accused Sullivan, 77, of sexually exploitative and predatory behaviour spanning decades—pressuring them for sex during business meetings, according to reporting by BBC Panorama and the Times. Sullivan made his fortune in pornography, newspapers, and football. He denies all allegations "categorically," saying the accusations "never happened" and had nothing to do with his 16 years at West Ham.
What the FA investigation produced was a temporary agreement: Sullivan would not meet academy or women's team players one-on-one until a historical anonymous complaint was resolved. A safeguarding group made up of the club, the FA, and the local authority brokered this arrangement. But London Stadium—the entity responsible for day-to-day operations of the stadium, its staff, contractors, and public safety—was never informed. The women's team itself was also kept in the dark, as was the Women's Super League.
London Stadium's complaint is straightforward: they say they "would expect to be informed" of such restrictions so they could "assess risk" and put protective measures in place for the people in their care. The company has now formally asked for clarification on why the communication chain broke down.
West Ham's response invokes safeguarding best practice. A club spokesperson told the BBC that keeping the circle of knowledge small is intentional—only parties directly involved in the safeguarding process are told, to minimize the number of people who know. The club says this approach was agreed with independent external bodies.
Sullivan himself characterizes the arrangement differently. He says the restriction was a "temporary agreement" negotiated with the FA, not a disciplinary ban. He claims he had never met academy or women's team players one-on-one in his 16 years at the club anyway, so the restriction was "meaningless" and had no impact on his work. He accepted it, he says, "for a quiet life." The complaint underlying it, he insists, had nothing to do with his time in football.
The Football Association declined to comment on the specifics, saying only that it has robust safeguarding measures in place. But the gap between what London Stadium knew and what it should have known raises a question about how safeguarding restrictions are communicated across an organization—and whether keeping information tightly held actually protects the people it's meant to protect.
Citações Notáveis
I saw it as a meaningless restriction, as it didn't impact on my work in any way, therefore I accepted it for a quiet life— David Sullivan
They would expect to be informed on these matters so they could assess risk and ensure measures were in place to protect their staff, contractors and the public— London Stadium's position
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would a stadium operator need to know about restrictions on a club owner's access to players?
Because they're responsible for the physical space, the staff who work there, and the public who enter it. If there's a safeguarding risk, they need to know how to manage it—who to watch for, what protocols to follow, how to protect people.
But wouldn't telling more people defeat the purpose of confidentiality in safeguarding cases?
That's the tension. You want to keep a complaint private to protect the accuser. But you also need the people running the building to know there's a risk. London Stadium is saying: we weren't even given the chance to assess whether we needed to take precautions.
What does Sullivan say about all this?
He says the restriction was meaningless because he never met players one-on-one anyway. He frames it as something he accepted to avoid fuss, not as a serious safeguarding measure.
Do we know if he actually complied with it?
The reporting doesn't say. We know the restriction existed. We don't know if it was enforced or monitored.
Why does it matter that the women's team didn't know?
Because they're the ones closest to the risk. If there's a restriction on someone's access to them, they should know why and what to do if it's breached. Keeping them uninformed doesn't protect them—it leaves them vulnerable.
What happens now?
London Stadium is asking questions. The FA isn't commenting. The real question is whether this gap in communication was a one-off failure or a pattern in how safeguarding is handled in football.