West Ham United's women's team were appalled to discover they had been playing under an invisible safeguard — a secret restriction that had for years limited their own co-owner's access to them. The club's largest shareholder, David Sullivan, had been banned from one-to-one contact with academy and women's players since 2023, yet neither the team nor the Women's Super League were ever told. The revelation, stemming from a joint BBC Panorama and Times investigation, has exposed a gap in football's approach to protecting players from those in power.
The Football Association opened a safeguarding investigation in 2023 after receiving a complaint against Sullivan — an allegation of sexual misconduct unrelated to football, according to the Guardian. In response, a safeguarding group composed of West Ham, the FA and the local authority decided to prevent Sullivan from having access to the club's youth and women's teams. Sullivan, 77, voluntarily agreed not to meet academy or women's team players "1-2-1" until the complaint was resolved, describing the restriction as "a meaningless restriction" that he accepted "for a quiet life". He has "categorically" denied all allegations of wrongdoing, which span the period when he made his fortune from pornography, newspapers and football.
“Why a safeguarding investigation into West Ham co-owner David Sullivan raises questions about transparency in football.”
The wider investigation by the BBC and the Times saw seven women accuse Sullivan of sexually exploitative and predatory behaviour, including pressuring them for sex during business meetings, with alleged incidents dating back to the 1980s. Through his lawyers, Sullivan has denied those claims. He resigned as a director and co-chair of the men's club — recently relegated to the Championship — before the allegations were published.
For UK football fans, the case raises uncomfortable questions about how safeguarding information is shared. London Stadium, which owns and operates West Ham's home ground, said they were not told about the restrictions on Sullivan and "would expect to be informed" so they could "assess risk" and protect staff, contractors and the public. The women's team and the Women's Super League were also kept in the dark. Sources told the Guardian that it would have breached the local authority's safeguarding regulations to inform the league or players of the details of an ongoing case. A West Ham spokesperson said the number of people informed was "intentionally kept to a minimum" in line with best practice agreed with independent external bodies.
The episode highlights the tension between confidentiality in safeguarding investigations and the need for transparency to ensure those at risk can protect themselves. It also underscores the challenge of regulating access by powerful individuals within football clubs — particularly when those individuals are owners, not employees.
Q: What are the allegations against David Sullivan? Seven women have accused Sullivan of sexually exploitative and predatory behaviour, including pressuring them for sex during business meetings, with alleged incidents dating back to the 1980s. Sullivan has categorically denied the claims. The allegations are the subject of a safeguarding investigation by the Football Association.
Q: Why weren't the West Ham women's team told about the restrictions on Sullivan? Sources say that under the local authority's safeguarding regulations, it would have been a breach to inform the league, players or staff of the details of an ongoing safeguarding case. West Ham said the number of people informed was kept to a minimum as per best practice agreed with independent bodies.
Q: What is a 'safeguarding group' and how does it work? A safeguarding group is a committee made up of representatives from the club, the Football Association and the local authority. It convenes to decide on measures to protect children and adults at risk in response to allegations or complaints. In this case, the group decided to restrict Sullivan's access to the club's youth and women's teams.
What happens next is uncertain. The FA investigation remains active, and Sullivan continues to deny any wrongdoing. The London Stadium has written to the club, the FA and the local authority seeking further information about why they were not made aware of the restrictions. No timeline for the investigation's conclusion has been announced. For now, the case has become a watershed moment for how football handles safeguarding — and for the players who may not know they are being protected from.