DBS 2026: When English Table Tennis Erases the 'Grey Zone' and Puts Every Volunteer on the Same Scale

At six o'clock in the evening on Tuesday, September 29, Kyhl Daly — the Designated Safeguarding Officer of Table Tennis England — will sit in front of a screen. For one hour, from 6 to 7 p.m., the person in charge of safeguarding at England's table tennis federation will speak about a legal change that could rewrite the way thousands of volunteers and coaches work with children across the United Kingdom. There is no scoreboard, no medal, no cheer. But in the twelve years I have spent observing the sports industry, I have learned one thing: the deepest dent on a chart is never left by a smash, but by a line of law printed at the right moment. I do not write about table tennis; I write about the dents that a legal change leaves on the safety chart of thousands of children.

This online webinar is not for everyone. It is for Club Welfare Officers, for members of club or league committees, and for volunteers who regularly work with children. If you belong to any of those groups, this is an hour you cannot afford to skip. If you do not, this is still a story you should read, because it is about the way a sport protects the most vulnerable people within its own system.

Context: What is DBS, and why is it present in every club?

DBS stands for Disclosure and Barring Service — the disclosure and barring agency of the United Kingdom. It is the body responsible for carrying out background checks on people who work in roles known as "Regulated Activity," especially roles involving children and vulnerable adults.

A DBS check reveals a person's criminal convictions, cautions, warnings, and other information relevant to safety. The result of that check determines whether a person is eligible to work with children in a sports environment. In the context of table tennis, this covers coaches, junior referees, team managers, and everyone who comes into direct and regular contact with young athletes.

In the UK, DBS is not an optional administrative procedure. It is part of the legal infrastructure that protects children. Every table tennis club with members under 18 must comply with the relevant regulations. However, precisely because DBS is a complex system, it has always contained grey zones — loopholes created by the gap between the language of the law and the reality on the court.

Table Tennis England — the governing body for table tennis in England — has long built a fairly tight safeguarding framework. It has a Designated Safeguarding Officer, policies, and training sessions. But law is law, and when the law changes, everything must change with it. That is why the webinar on September 29 is not merely an administrative event. It is a milestone.

Core: What actually changes from September 1, 2026?

This is the core section I want to dissect with numbers and with the language of the law, because if you only read the notice, you will miss the most important thing.

From September 1, 2026, the Crime and Policing Act 2026 removed the "supervision exemption" from the legal definition of Regulated Activity. Previously, some volunteers and coaches who worked with children under supervision did not need a DBS check. That no longer applies, and supervised roles are now treated exactly the same as unsupervised ones.

Let me translate that into plain language. Previously, if a young coach assisted in a class alongside a lead coach who held a DBS check, that young coach could fall outside the checking requirement. The argument was that a DBS-checked adult stood beside them, so the risk was reduced. From September 2026, that argument no longer holds legal weight. That young coach, even standing beside ten DBS-checked adults, must still undergo a DBS check.

This is a change in definition, but its consequences are systemic. Imagine a small table tennis club in rural England with around forty junior members and twelve volunteers. Previously, perhaps four of those twelve were considered "under supervision" and did not need DBS. After September 1, 2026, all twelve must hold DBS. The administrative cost, waiting time, and paperwork burden rise significantly.

But wait. Before you think this is a story about administrative burden, look at the other side of the chart. A DBS check does not judge a person; it only illuminates the dark zone that the club refuses to see. And in sport, the dark zone is where the worst things happen.

Core: Why did the supervision exemption exist, and why did it collapse?

To understand fully, we need to step back a little. The supervision exemption was born in a very different context. It was designed to reduce the burden on voluntary organizations, where checking everyone could create an insurmountable barrier. The idea was: if a person is never alone with children, if a DBS-checked adult always supervises, then the risk is acceptable.

In theory, that sounded reasonable. In practice, it created a loophole. Because in a table tennis club, "supervision" is a blurry concept. Who is really supervising whom? When the DBS-checked lead coach leaves the hall to take a phone call, is the young coach without a DBS check still considered supervised? When a group of children spreads out across three practice tables, can one adult supervise all three at once?

I have spoken with child protection workers in many countries. And what I realized is this: the loopholes are not located in bad people. They are located in the gaps between regulations. Bad actors do not need to break the law; they only need to find where the law does not reach. The supervision exemption was one such gap.

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 closes that gap. Technically, it changes the definition of Regulated Activity. Practically, it tells every table tennis club in England: there is no such thing as "safe because someone is standing next to you." Safety is a state that must be built person by person.

Core: Who is affected, and where are the numbers?

As I write these lines, I try to separate emotion from numbers. But with this topic, the numbers are hard to find. There is no public statistical table that shows exactly how many table tennis volunteers in England are working under supervision without a DBS. That is a data blind spot, and I must admit I do not have enough evidence to give an absolute figure.

However, we can estimate from structure. Table Tennis England manages a network of clubs spread across England. Most of these clubs operate on the strength of volunteers. In a typical club, the ratio between fully DBS-checked coaches and assistants, table helpers, and junior team managers tilts toward the latter. If you apply the new legal change to that structure, you will see the number of people needing DBS checks rise sharply.

What does that mean? It means clubs will face a choice: either spend more money and time to check everyone, or cut back on volunteers. In the short term, some clubs may have to pause child-related activities. In the long term, clubs that do things right will become safer, and clubs that do things wrong will be removed from the system.

This is where I want to invoke a principle I always pursue: dual-source verification. The law is the first source. The operational reality of clubs is the second source. If you read only the law, you will think everything is crystal clear. If you look only at reality, you will see a mess. The truth lies at the intersection of the two sources.

Core: What will the webinar cover?

According to the official notice, during the webinar, participants will learn about:

First, the change in regulations and how it affects them and the volunteers they may work with. This is the core section, and it will answer the question many people are asking: "Can I still work with children?"

Second, Table Tennis England's DBS processes and the importance of the DBS check in safeguarding children in the sport. This is the section I am especially interested in, because it concerns how a specific organization operates a general legal system.

Third, wider information about DBS in table tennis. This may be the most useful section for newcomers, those who have never been through the process.

The session will be led by Kyhl Daly, the Designated Safeguarding Officer of Table Tennis England. This is an important role, because the Designated Safeguarding Officer is the person with the highest responsibility for safeguarding matters in a sports organization. Having the head of safeguarding personally lead a webinar shows the seriousness with which Table Tennis England treats the issue.

Core: What you need to prepare before the webinar

If you are a Club Welfare Officer, a committee member, or a volunteer who works with children, there are several things you should do before September 29.

First, check your club's volunteer list. Who has a DBS, who does not? Who works directly with children, who works only indirectly? This sorting will help you understand the scope of the new legal change.

Second, reread your club's current safeguarding policies. Are there any clauses related to the supervision exemption? If so, they need updating. Do not wait until an incident occurs to revise documents.

Third, prepare questions. Online webinars usually have a Q&A section, and this is your chance to clarify what the documentation does not answer. Write down specific questions about your club's situation, not generic ones.

Fourth, visit Table Tennis England's DBS page for more information. This link was included in the official notice, and it is the most reliable source of information.

Contrarian angle: When a stricter law does not mean a safer sport

This is the section I want to reserve for something few people mention. Removing the supervision exemption is a legal step forward. But it does not automatically create a safer environment.

Why? Because safety is not a state defined by paperwork. It is a practice maintained by people. A DBS-checked coach can still cause harm. A volunteer without a DBS check can still create a good environment. The DBS check is a necessary filter, but it is not a perfect shield.

I have seen this in many fields. In football, transfer regulations have grown stricter, yet financial scandals still occur. In basketball, anti-doping regulations have grown tougher, yet athletes are still caught. The law never gets ahead of reality; it only chases reality.

The same holds for DBS. Removing the supervision exemption is a step forward. But it also places a new burden on small clubs, the places with the fewest resources. If we are not careful, we may create a situation where child protection law weakens the clubs that serve children.

This is not an argument against the change. It is a reminder that every legal change has two sides. And in my data analysis work, I always try to look at both sides, not just the one the media highlights.

I wonder whether Table Tennis England has a plan to provide financial support to small clubs in carrying out the new DBS checks. I wonder whether they will train additional Welfare Officers to handle the increased workload. I wonder whether they will track the impact of this change on volunteer numbers over the next twelve months.

These questions are not answered in the notice. But they are questions anyone concerned with the sustainable development of table tennis should raise.

Contrarian angle: The blind spot of measuring safety

In my work, I constantly face a problem: how to measure things that cannot be measured by direct numbers. In football, we have xG — expected goals — to measure the quality of chances. In table tennis, we have metrics on spin, bounce, and accuracy. But how do we measure the safety level of a club?

If we only count DBS checks, we only measure input. If we only count reported incidents, we only measure the tip of the iceberg. What really matters — club culture, trust between children and adults, the ability to recognize warning signs — is not easily quantified.

And that is the biggest blind spot of any safeguarding system. We measure what is easy to measure and ignore what is hard to measure. But it is precisely the hard-to-measure things where real risk resides.

The webinar on September 29, formally, is about a legal change. But in spirit, it is an opportunity for table tennis clubs to ask themselves: beyond complying with the law, what are we doing to create a truly safe environment for children?

Core: International comparison — Vietnam and China seen from London

As a Vietnamese person living and working in Beijing, I always look at sports issues from at least three angles: Vietnam, China, and the West. On the topic of child protection in sport, the differences are large.

In Vietnam, the concept of background checks for sports coaches is still relatively new. Table tennis clubs largely operate on personal trust. In China, where I live, the state sports system has fairly strict regulations on coaches, but they focus on performance more than protection. In the UK, DBS is an example of how a civil society builds a protection system from the ground up.

I am not saying the British model is perfect. It has its own problems — administrative burden, cost, complexity. But it has a principle that I think other countries can learn from: child protection is not a procedure, it is a default state. You do not check DBS because you suspect someone. You check because you assume everyone must be checked before working with children.

That is a reversal of logic. And reversals of logic are often where real reform begins.

Core: What will happen after September 1, 2026?

Let us look at the near future. After the supervision exemption is removed, three scenarios may occur.

Scenario one: Clubs comply fully. They check DBS for all volunteers working with children. Costs rise, but the environment is safer. This is the ideal scenario.

Scenario two: Clubs comply formally. They require DBS on paper but do not monitor, do not update, do not train. This is the most dangerous scenario, because it creates a false sense of safety.

Scenario three: Small clubs cannot comply. They lack resources, manpower, time. They have to cut child-related activities. This is the most worrying scenario, because it harms the very children the law wants to protect.

I do not know which scenario will prevail. But I know the outcome will depend on how Table Tennis England supports its clubs. The law can be enacted from London, but enforcement happens in every table tennis hall across England.

Contrarian angle: Why I do not see this as administrative news

When I first read the notice about this webinar, my first reaction was: "This is administrative news. There is no sporting element." But after thinking more carefully, I realized I was wrong.

In sport, we usually only pay attention to what happens on the court. We analyze the smash, the tactics, the psychology of competition. We forget that behind every junior athlete stands a system of hundreds of adults — coaches, volunteers, managers, parents. That system can be a foundation for development, or an environment for abuse.

Removing the supervision exemption changes how that system operates. It does not affect the result of any specific match. But it affects the ability of thousands of children to play table tennis in a safe environment.

And if you think this is unrelated to elite sport, think again. Today's world champions were yesterday's children playing table tennis at local clubs. If those clubs were not safe, we may have lost undiscovered talents. Not because they were not good enough, but because they were harmed before they had a chance to develop.

I do not write about football; I write about the dents players leave on the chart. In this case, the dent is somewhere else. It is in lines of law, in webinars, in background checks that no one sees.

Core: The numbers to watch

Although I do not yet have enough data to give an absolute figure on the number of affected volunteers, I can suggest some indicators that sports managers should track over the next twelve months.

Indicator one: The number of DBS checks carried out per month. This is an input indicator, showing the level of compliance.

Indicator two: The number of volunteers leaving the system. This is a negative-impact indicator, showing the burden of the change.

Indicator three: The number of safeguarding concern reports. This is the most complex indicator, because a rise could mean things are getting worse, or could mean people are being braver about reporting.

Indicator four: The number of clubs forced to pause child-related activities. This is the indicator I worry about most.

Indicator five: The number of children participating in table tennis. This is the final indicator, and also the most important. Because the ultimate goal of any safeguarding policy is not to reduce risk by reducing access, but to increase safety by increasing quality.

If after a year the number of children playing table tennis falls, then we need to ask whether the legal change is achieving its goal. If the number of children rises, and the number of safeguarding concern reports also rises, then perhaps we are on the right track.

Core: My monitoring experience and lessons from other sports

In twelve years of observing the sports industry, I have witnessed many similar legal changes. From anti-doping regulations in athletics, to financial regulations in football, to safety regulations in rugby. Every change had its supporters and its opponents. Every change had unforeseen consequences.

The biggest lesson I have drawn is this: successful legal changes are not the strictest ones, but the best-supported ones. A harsh law with no resources to enforce it will only create formal compliance. A moderate law with adequate resources will create real change.

With DBS, the important question is not whether the change is right. It clearly is, in principle. The important question is whether Table Tennis England has enough resources to support clubs in implementing it.

I hope the webinar on September 29 will partly answer that question. But I also know that a one-hour webinar cannot solve every problem. It is only a starting point. The real work lies in each club, each Welfare Officer, each volunteer.

Core: Questions the webinar may answer

Based on the official notice, these are the questions I expect to be addressed during the webinar.

Question one: When exactly does the change take effect, and is there a transition period? This is a question about timing, and it matters greatly for planning.

Question two: Who is responsible for checking which roles? How does a club determine who needs DBS and who does not? This is a question about scope.

Question three: Who pays for the new DBS checks? The club, the volunteer, or the federation? This is a question about finance.

Question four: What happens if a volunteer refuses a DBS check? Are they removed from the club? This is a question about consequences.

Question five: Are there exceptions? For example, one-off events, friendly tournaments, exhibition matches? This is a question about special cases.

Question six: Does Table Tennis England plan to train or support Club Welfare Officers in implementing this change? This is a question about resources.

If the webinar answers these questions, it will be a major success.

Core: Why this matters for Vietnamese table tennis

I was born in Vietnam, and I always try to connect what I read from the world to my homeland. So why does what Table Tennis England is doing matter for Vietnamese table tennis?

Because Vietnam is also building its sports system, and that system will need a child protection framework. Watching how other countries do it — both successes and failures — is a way to learn without paying the price.

Vietnamese table tennis is growing. More and more children are joining clubs, classes, and tournaments. With that growth comes a responsibility: to protect those children from the risks that any sports environment can contain.

The British DBS system may not fit the Vietnamese context. But the principle behind it — that child protection is a shared responsibility, not an individual one — is a universal principle.

I hope that one day, Vietnamese table tennis clubs will also have Welfare Officers, checking processes, and webinars like this. Not because we distrust each other, but because we respect children.

Closing: One hour can change many things

At 7 p.m. on September 29, the webinar will end. Participants will turn off their computers and return to their lives. Coaches will return to the court. Welfare Officers will return to their paperwork. Volunteers will return to the children they serve.

But something will change. Not in a single moment, but over the following months. Policies will be updated. Lists will be revised. Checks will be carried out.

And somewhere, in a small club in a small English town, a child will play table tennis in an environment a little safer than yesterday. Not because some hero appeared, but because a system was adjusted.

I do not write about football; I write about the dents players leave on the chart. Sometimes, the deepest dents come not from the hardest hits, but from the smallest changes. And sometimes, a line of law printed at the right moment carries more power than a thousand training sessions.

The webinar takes place on September 29, from 6 to 7 p.m. Registration is open. And if you are part of the English table tennis community, this is one of the most valuable hours you can spend this year.

An empty hall creates no ghosts; it creates the cleanest data a monk could ever dream of. And in this case, the children's table tennis hall — whether it has spectators or not — deserves to be protected by the most carefully designed system we can create.

The question for the future is not whether we should run background checks on everyone who works with children. The question is: how do we make that check part of club culture rather than an administrative barrier? And the answer, perhaps, will begin at the webinar on September 29.