New DBS Rules from September 1, 2026: When British Table Tennis Tightens the Safeguarding Fence, and Lessons for Vietnamese Table Tennis Clubs

There is a moment that anyone who has ever stood at the edge of a children's table tennis arena will remember forever. It is the steady bounce of the ball on the table, the sound of the paddle hitting the ball, and behind those children in team uniforms are adults — coaches, volunteers, club managers — quietly doing their work. In table tennis, a sport I have covered for many years as an Olympic events reporter for the Vietnamese market, we often talk about spin speed, footwork, and decisive counter-attacks. But today, the story begins somewhere else entirely: from an invisible fence that nonetheless decides the fate of an entire sport.

That is the fence protecting children.

On September 29, 2026, Table Tennis England will host a one-hour online webinar, from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM. The person leading this seminar is none other than Kyhl Daly, the Designated Safeguarding Officer of Table Tennis England. The content of this session is not technical or tactical in nature. It discusses changes to DBS — Disclosure and Barring Service — background check requirements and what that means for those who volunteer with children in table tennis.

I want to say it straight: this is the kind of news that the professional sports world often overlooks, but which carries decisive weight for the sustainability of that sport over the next decade. And for someone working in sports in Vietnam like me, it is a mirror worth looking into.

During many years of following youth tournaments, I have repeatedly witnessed scenes of a stranger standing right behind the practice area of young athletes with no one asking questions. In England, that very gap is now being closed by law. In Vietnam, that gap remains wide open. This article will explain, layer by layer, what is changing, why it is changing, who is affected — and what it means for us.

Context: When the law changes pace before the ball can spin

I learned to read a table tennis match from the athletics track, where there is drama even without a ball. When I began researching this story, I realized that a rule change is exactly like a sprint: there is a slow warm-up phase, an unexpected acceleration moment, and a finish line that, if you haven't prepared in advance, you will miss.

The finish line here is September 1, 2026.

From that date, the Crime and Policing Act 2026 officially removes the so-called "supervision exemption" from the legal definition of Regulated Activity in England and Wales. This is a legal phrase that sounds dry, but it is the center of the entire story, so I will explain it in detail.

Previously — meaning before September 1, 2026 — the definition of Regulated Activity had a loophole designed deliberately. If a volunteer or coach worked with children but that work took place under the continuous supervision of a responsible person, then that role did not necessarily have to be classified as Regulated Activity. This meant that person might not yet need an enhanced DBS check — a stricter criminal background verification process than a standard check.

In other words, a 20-year-old volunteer teaching table tennis to a group of 8-year-olds, as long as another responsible adult was present in the room, could stand outside the wall of background checks. This old interpretation rested on a psychological assumption I find quite naive: that merely having a second person in the room reduces risk to the point where checking is unnecessary.

From September 1, 2026, that assumption is completely dismantled.

Under the new regulation, supervised roles will be treated exactly the same as unsupervised roles. If you are a volunteer or coach working with children in table tennis in England, and your work falls under Regulated Activity, then you need a DBS check — regardless of whether anyone is standing next to you.

This is a genuine legal acceleration. And like every acceleration in sport, it does not just change the speed of the runner in front, but changes the entire landscape behind.

What is DBS, and why is it so important?

The fence exists to test people's hearts, not to block them. But for it to test hearts, that fence must first exist and must be properly understood.

DBS — fully known as the Disclosure and Barring Service — is the UK public authority responsible for conducting criminal background checks and making decisions about whether someone is barred from or permitted to work with vulnerable groups, including children and vulnerable adults. This is not a simple administrative procedure. It is a legally binding system with multiple levels of checks depending on the degree of contact with children and the level of responsibility of the role.

At the lowest level is the Basic DBS Check, which only lists unspent convictions and cautions. This level typically applies to roles without contact with children.

Higher is the Enhanced DBS Check, which may include information from local police, lists of people barred from working with children, and other relevant information deemed necessary by authorities.

And the highest is the Enhanced DBS Check with Barred List Check, for roles classified as Regulated Activity — meaning work that is frequent, uninterrupted, under direct management, involving teaching, instructing, caring for, or supervising children.

In table tennis, roles of this type include official coaches with regular contact with junior athletes, youth team managers, referees in charge of junior tournaments, and volunteers regularly participating in children's training sessions.

Previously, some roles in this group could slip through the supervision exemption loophole. After September 1, 2026, that loophole closes.

It is important to emphasize: this is not news about arresting or investigating a specific individual. This is a systemic change. It is like a tournament organizer deciding to change the service rule — not because someone cheated, but because the old rule no longer fits reality.

The September 29 seminar: Who should attend and what will be discussed

Back to the central event. The online webinar organized by Table Tennis England will take place on Tuesday, September 29, 2026, from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM (UK local time). Registration is done online through Table Tennis England's official channel.

The host, Kyhl Daly, is the federation's Designated Safeguarding Officer. This role in a national sports federation's structure is not a formal title. This is the person responsible for designing, monitoring, and updating the entire system's child protection policy, as well as being the focal point for handling complaints and incidents related to the safety of junior players.

This seminar targets a very specific audience. If you are a Club Welfare Officer, a member of a club or league committee, or someone who volunteers regularly with children, then this seminar is for you. I will analyze why each of these groups is important separately.

First, Club Welfare Officers are the people most directly responsible for ensuring everyone in the club who has contact with children has valid documentation. If this officer does not understand the new law, the club could inadvertently violate legal regulations without knowing. This is a type of systemic error, not a personal one, but the consequences are still very serious.

Second, club and league committee members are the ones approving volunteer recruitment. If they do not understand the DBS process, they could recruit people into roles requiring checks without requiring checks. Under the new legal framework, this is a direct legal risk for the organization.

Third — and this is the group I care most about as an events reporter — are the volunteers who regularly work with children. These are the people who previously might not have needed checks because they worked under supervision, but from September 1, 2026, they do. I have repeatedly seen volunteers shocked to learn they need additional paperwork that no one previously required. This seminar is precisely the opportunity for them to understand clearly before being caught off guard.

The seminar content will cover three main layers: understanding the regulatory change and how it affects you and the volunteers you work with; learning about Table Tennis England's DBS process and how it actually operates; and understanding the importance of DBS checks in safeguarding children in this sport.

The stadium is empty, but every number still fills the stands. The seminar may not draw as many people as a final, but whoever misses it will pay the price with delayed preparation.

Deep analysis: Why the supervision gap is more dangerous than we think

This is the core analysis section, and I want to give it the space it deserves. Because if you only read the administrative notice, people will easily overlook the logic behind this change.

In any sport involving children, the risk model does not lie with strangers breaking in from outside. It lies with those given legitimate access.

I learned this during my years following youth athletics. When I was 16 and first assigned to write news for the provincial youth team's fanpage at the National Youth Athletics Championship held right in Binh Duong, I defied the barriers and rushed into the mixed zone to ask the athlete about starting technique. Security chased me but I managed to record the answer. That moment taught me something I have carried throughout my career: news doesn't know how to wait for anyone, and children also don't know how to protect themselves from those they trust.

In table tennis, the coach-junior athlete relationship has a very particular characteristic. This is an individual combat sport, not a team one. Children train in small spaces, often one table, one corner, with one-on-one or one-on-few interaction. The physical distance between coach and junior student is very close — close enough to adjust hand posture, adjust paddle angle, adjust footwork rhythm. This is entirely necessary technically, but it also creates a space where trust and power intertwine tightly.

When a relationship has a power imbalance — adult with child, coach with student, expert with novice — external supervision should not be the final shield replacing background checks. That is the logical flaw of the old regulation.

Imagine a specific situation. A local table tennis club has a training session for a group of children aged 7 to 12 on Wednesday evenings. The training room is about 200 square meters, with 8 tables. In the room there are two adults: a head coach who already has a full DBS check, and a young 19-year-old volunteer assigned to a "teaching assistant" role but in reality working with a group of 5 children for a full hour.

Under the old regulation, if the head coach is in the room, the 19-year-old volunteer could be considered as working under supervision. But who among us truly believes that a coach with 8 tables and 30 students can continuously supervise, second by second, an assistant standing 15 meters away in the corner of the room? The answer is no one believes that. Supervision on paper is not the same as supervision in reality. This is precisely the blind spot the new law targets.

From September 1, 2026, the distinction between "supervised" and "unsupervised" is no longer the deciding factor in whether a role requires a DBS check. This forces clubs to look at the actual nature of the work, not the formal structure.

There is an economic aspect that few mention. DBS checks are not entirely free. At the enhanced level with barred list check, costs can vary depending on volunteer status, but administrative costs still exist. For small clubs, this is a real burden. But I want to say it straight: if a club cannot afford the cost of background checks for those in contact with children, that club is operating on an unsustainable risk model. This is the lesson British table tennis is learning systematically, and I believe clubs elsewhere will have to learn it too.

When the track cuts across the pitch, speed becomes the common language. In this case, when the law cuts across sport, transparency becomes the common language. And transparency cannot exist without verified data and processes.

Counterintuitive view: The blind spots that both federations and clubs easily overlook

Now comes the part I consider most important, and also the most likely to cause controversy. I will pose the problem in reverse of how most administrative notices usually present it.

When a sports federation issues new child protection regulations, the default community response is usually compliance. People sign papers, complete courses, submit DBS check applications, and then consider the problem solved. But that is a psychological trap I have repeatedly witnessed in sports organizations.

A DBS check is a filter at the moment of checking, not a permanent guarantee. A person can pass a DBS check today and still cause harm tomorrow, because the justice system only records acts that have been detected, convicted, and entered into records. There is a dark gap between "never convicted" and "safe with children". DBS checks narrow that gap, but do not eliminate it.

This means the change from September 1, 2026 is a necessary step, but not sufficient. It closes the legal loophole, but cannot replace organizational culture.

And this is the biggest blind spot: a club can pass every administrative check and still not guarantee children's safety. If the club's culture is a culture of silence — where children dare not speak up, where parents are not encouraged to ask questions, where members blindly trust the teacher — then every DBS check paper is just a decorative shield.

I once followed one of the great waves of European football transfer shifts as a reporter, and I learned that organizational culture has greater power than rules on paper. A club with loose rules but an open culture will be safer than a club with strict rules but a closed culture.

The second blind spot concerns the volunteers themselves. When DBS check requirements expand to supervised roles, some well-meaning, dedicated volunteers who do not want to go through complex administrative procedures may leave their roles. This is a side effect that sports federations must acknowledge. Tightening protection regulations can reduce volunteer resources in the short term, and organizations must prepare for that by simplifying processes, not by loosening standards.

The third blind spot — and this is the one I am particularly concerned about as someone working in sports in Vietnam — is the issue of international transfer. International table tennis tournaments involve junior athletes from many countries. When a Vietnamese junior athlete goes to England to compete, must the accompanying coaches and coaching staff comply with DBS regulations? Are junior athletes competing under the supervision of foreign coaches protected by the same standards? These are questions that international organizations will have to answer in the coming years.

The fence exists to test people's hearts, not to block them. But a fence is only valuable when it is built in the right place, and when those who cross it truly understand what it is for.

What does this mean for Vietnamese table tennis?

I will say it straight: Vietnamese table tennis does not yet have a legal framework equivalent to DBS, and that is not a criticism. Each country develops its child protection system at its own pace and conditions. But looking at the British table tennis story, we can draw preparatory lessons.

Based on my experience following youth tournaments, I notice a repeating pattern. In the early stage of a sport's development, all resources flow into competitive performance: professional coaching, physical fitness, competitive psychology. Child protection work is often considered administrative paperwork, done later, done perfunctorily. Only when an incident occurs does the whole system realize they have left an important fence empty for years.

In England, this process happens in reverse: law first, practice after. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 closes the supervision exemption loophole, and now clubs must adapt. The September 29 seminar is precisely the tool for transferring from law to club practice.

For table tennis clubs in Vietnam, I think there are three things to consider before the law requires them.

First, build a list of roles in contact with children in the club. Who actually has regular contact with junior athletes? Who occasionally? Who never? This classification helps determine who needs at least a background check, who needs an enhanced check. This is a data analysis step many clubs have not done.

Second, establish an open reporting mechanism. Children and parents must have a channel to report concerns without fear of retaliation. This does not require law, only organizational will. A club with an anonymous feedback box and an independent welfare officer is already better than many clubs with full paperwork but no reporting channel.

Third, periodic training for all personnel in contact with children on how to recognize risk signals, how to communicate appropriately, and how to behave when there is a report. The gap between knowing the law and acting according to the law is huge, and training is the bridge across that gap.

37.1 km/h — speed belongs neither to the track nor the pitch, but to those who dare to charge. In the field of child protection, the one who dares to charge is not the fastest sprinter, but the one who builds the fence before an incident occurs.

Numbers and timelines to remember

To make this analysis practically valuable, I summarize the important milestones that anyone concerned with child protection in table tennis needs to remember.

September 1, 2026: The Crime and Policing Act 2026 officially removes the supervision exemption from the definition of Regulated Activity. From this date, supervised roles are treated exactly the same as unsupervised roles.

Tuesday, September 29, 2026, from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM: Table Tennis England's online seminar on DBS regulation changes, led by Kyhl Daly — Designated Safeguarding Officer.

Target audience: Club Welfare Officers, club and league committee members, and volunteers who regularly work with children.

I want to emphasize one thing about this timeline. The gap between September 1 and September 29 is only four weeks. That is a very short time for a club to prepare. If a club waits until after the seminar to start reviewing its processes, they are already a step behind. In sport, one step behind can be the entire difference between a gold medal and a position outside the rankings.

Insider story: From the track to the table and the invisible fence

I want to tell a personal story, because any analysis of child protection that stops at numbers and regulations will lack the depth it deserves.

In 2026, when the pandemic halted all tournaments and my collaboration contracts ended, I was a second-year Economics student, sitting in Binh Duong wondering what to do next. I did not sit waiting. I downloaded data on 45 English Premier League matches from the 2026-2026 season when football returned with empty stadiums. I discovered something unusual: goals scored from the 80th minute onward increased 32% compared to the pre-pandemic period. I wrote a separate analysis, posted it on social media, and offered a hypothesis about defenders' loss of focus when there is no crowd noise.

That article not only gave me a new career opportunity. It taught me a principle I apply to every topic, even seemingly dry subjects like background checks: the changes with the greatest impact are often not on the flashy surface, but in areas people overlook because they think they are already fine.

The supervision exemption change in England is exactly such an area. It is not a record transfer contract. It is not a stoppage-time goal. It is a line of law changing in a legal document hundreds of pages long. But it can protect thousands of children for years to come, or — if not properly enforced — could leave gaps whose consequences only surface years later.

When I followed Mbappé accelerating to 37.1 km/h in France's 4-3 win over Argentina at the 2026 World Cup, I wrote an article titled calling him an athlete lost on the pitch. That article was shared over 5,000 times in one night. I learned that cross-disciplinary thinking — viewing football through the eyes of the track — creates new value. By the same logic, I believe viewing child protection in sport through the eyes of a data reporter can create similar value. We need to treat child protection work as seriously as tactical analysis, and we need to do it before an incident occurs, not after.

In 2026, when I was 23 and sent to Paris for Olympic coverage, I witnessed Noah Lyles win the 100m with 9.79 seconds and then question the NBA. I produced a short video analyzing that statement through the track and arena lens, and it drew over a million views. What I learned from that moment is: a correct message, communicated correctly, can reach millions in a short time. And that is why I write this article in Vietnamese, for Vietnamese readers, because the British table tennis DBS story can be a lesson for us before we are forced to learn it in a more painful way.

Comparative analysis: British table tennis and other sports

To place this change in a broader context, I want to compare how different sports handle background check requirements for those working with children.

In football, a sport with far greater resources, national federations have applied background check requirements for quite some time. The Football Association (FA) requires enhanced DBS checks for all coaches and volunteers with regular contact with children under 18, regardless of supervision. This is the standard British table tennis is moving toward.

In tennis, the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) applies similar requirements for certified coaches. Individual sports like table tennis and tennis have a structural advantage: the number of people in contact with children in each club is often fewer than in team sports, so management and checking can be easier administratively.

In swimming, a sport I am particularly interested in as a multi-sport reporter, child protection regulations tend to be stricter due to the nature of physical contact in the water environment. Swim England requires enhanced DBS checks for all coaches and assistants, regardless of supervision level.

Interestingly, table tennis, with its characteristic of high child participation rates and training environments that are often small community clubs, may actually have higher risk if checking is lax. When a club has few adults, cross-supervision becomes more difficult. This reinforces the logic of the change from September 1, 2026.

When the track cuts across the pitch, speed becomes the common language. But in child protection, what becomes the common language is not speed, but consistency. A protection system is only effective when applied uniformly, with no exceptions, no loopholes.

Questions the seminar may not fully answer

I want to pose some questions I believe attendees at the seminar should ask themselves, even if organizers do not address them directly.

First question: How do you distinguish between a "frequent" and an "occasional" role? The definition of Regulated Activity includes a frequency factor. Does a volunteer helping one session per month fall into the category requiring a DBS check? What about a coach teaching a three-week short course? These questions need answers with clear criteria, not subjective judgment from each club.

Second question: Who bears legal responsibility if an unchecked volunteer causes harm? That individual, the club committee, or the federation? Clearly defining responsibility is the key factor for clubs to truly take the regulation seriously.

Third question: How do you balance safety and accessibility? If DBS check costs and procedures are too burdensome, small clubs in remote areas may lose volunteer resources. Are there financial support mechanisms for these clubs? This is the question I consider most important for long-term policy.

Fourth question: How do you ensure the privacy of those being checked? DBS check results are sensitive information. Storage and processing of this information must comply with personal data protection regulations, and clubs need specific guidance on this.

From my experience, a one-hour seminar can only answer about a third of the questions the community truly needs. Therefore, I recommend those interested treat the seminar as a starting point, not an ending point. After the seminar, follow-up discussions at club and local levels are needed.

Adaptation strategy for clubs in the transition period

For British table tennis clubs adapting to the new regulation, and for clubs elsewhere preparing for the future, I propose a strategic framework of four phases, inspired by how I read an athletics race.

Warm-up phase: Audit all personnel. Clearly identify who is in contact with children, in what role, with what frequency, under whose management. This is the foundational data collection step, and it must be done before any other decision.

Acceleration phase: Prioritize the highest-risk roles. Those in frequent, one-on-one contact with children should be checked first. Indirect or low-frequency roles can be handled later. Allocating resources by risk level is the most effective approach.

Breakthrough phase: Train and raise awareness for all personnel, not just those needing DBS checks. Every club member, including parents, needs to understand the child protection policy, the reporting channel, and each person's responsibility.

Sprint phase: Establish periodic evaluation and update mechanisms. Legal regulations can change, personnel can change, and risks can change. An effective child protection policy is not a static document, but a dynamic process updated continuously.

Summer is empty of spectators, but data never takes a summer break. By the same logic, child protection work cannot take leave. It must be maintained even — and especially — during the least noticed periods.

Long-term impact on global table tennis

I want to expand the view slightly beyond England, because legal changes in one country with significant influence in sport often create a domino effect.

The International Table Tennis Federation (ITTF) has child protection guidelines that member federations are encouraged to follow. When an important member federation like England raises its standards, peer pressure will push other federations to reconsider their standards. This is a typical standard propagation mechanism in international organizations.

In the medium term, I predict three trends. First, background verification will become a mandatory requirement for international tournaments with junior athletes. Second, federations will develop cross-checking systems, allowing countries to recognize each other's background check results. Third, there will be professionalization of the welfare officer role, with standardized training and certification.

For Vietnamese table tennis, where the sport is growing strongly in the number of young athletes participating in international tournaments, preparing for these trends is necessary. Vietnamese junior athletes competing abroad will be protected by the host country's standards, but our coaching staff and accompanying personnel also need to comply with those requirements. This is a practical aspect that families with children competing internationally need to know.

On structure and organization of competitive events

There is a technical aspect of this change I want to analyze further, as it relates directly to how tournaments are organized.

When the supervision exemption regulation is removed, tournament organizers must review their entire personnel structure. Referees, secretaries, technical support staff, scorekeepers — all these roles may have contact with junior athletes, and many of them are volunteers. Under the old regulation, some of these roles could fall outside check requirements if they worked under the supervision of the head referee. Under the new regulation, that boundary blurs.

This creates pressure on tournament organizers: they need to ensure all roles classified as Regulated Activity are checked, but at the same time must not paralyze the tournament's operation due to lack of personnel. This is a difficult balancing problem requiring early preparation.

In table tennis, youth tournaments often take place with a large number of matches in a short time, requiring many referees and volunteers. If each of them needs an enhanced DBS check with barred list check, preparation time could extend from weeks to months. This is why the September 29 seminar is important — it gives organizers time to plan.

I have witnessed moments where backstage preparation decides the success or failure of an entire event. Jumping hurdles since I was 15, I know the rules never stand still. When the rules change, those who prepare first gain the advantage, and those who prepare later must chase.

The role of parents: Observers who cannot stand outside

One aspect I find often overlooked in child protection discussions is the role of parents.

Parents are the ones bringing their children to the club. They are the ones paying tuition. They are the ones waiting outside the court. In many cases, they are the first line of defense — or a disabled line of defense due to lack of information.

The change in British table tennis creates an opportunity for parents to ask questions. When the new law takes effect, parents have the right to ask the club: Who is in contact with my child? Has that person had a DBS check? Does the club have a written child protection policy? Who do I contact if I have concerns?

These questions are not signs of suspicion or distrust. They are expressions of responsible participation. A good club will welcome these questions, because they help the club maintain high standards.

From my observations, sports clubs in many parts of the world, including Asia, tend to treat parents' questions as interference. This is a cultural mistake to correct. Parents are not opponents. They are allies in protecting children.

Open thoughts on the future of safeguarding in sport

I want to end this analysis not with a summary, but with a direction of thought moving forward.

The DBS regulation change in British table tennis is a small moment in a larger picture. That picture is the professionalization process of child protection in sport globally. This process did not begin today and will not end on September 29, 2026.

What I believe will shape the future is the shift from compliance to culture. Currently, many sports organizations treat background checks as a box to tick. They do it because the law requires it, not because they believe in its value. In the future, successful organizations will be those that treat child protection as part of their identity, not an external obligation.

Between two finish lines, the only thing that does not change is speed. In child protection work, the only thing not allowed to change is consistency. I hope the September 29 seminar will not just be an administrative event, but a turning point in how British table tennis — and through it, global table tennis — thinks about its responsibility to the next generation.

The stadium is empty, but every transfer number still fills the stands. In this case, the stadium is not empty at all. Every child is a stand full of hope, and every adult in the training room is responsible for keeping that stand safe.

When the track cuts across the pitch, speed becomes the common language. When the law cuts across sport, transparency becomes the common language. And when children are at the center, the responsibility of adults becomes the only language that can be understood.

The question I leave for readers, and for myself, is not whether we will comply with the new regulation. The real question is: when the invisible fence is built, will we have the courage to stand behind it, not as those being blocked, but as those who chose to stay to protect someone?