Proposal

This proposal considers the constituency honestly, and separates governance from operations

This governance model re-frames junior squash around representation, accountability, and real stakeholder voice. Instead of power sitting with a small, structurally disconnected group, the model ensures that those who are directly invested in the game — players, parents, coaches, and schools — have a clear, legitimate pathway to influence decisions. It separates participation from governance, allowing the sport to be shaped by its community while still being run with discipline, transparency, and alignment to best-practice principles such as King IV. The result is a system that is more inclusive, more credible, and ultimately more effective at growing the game from the ground up.

The model is built on clear, functional components that translate principle into practice. It defines two distinct classes of membership to reflect the different roles within the game, ensuring fair and appropriate representation without conflating participation with control. A transparent and robust nomination process allows any suitable candidate to be proposed — not just those within existing power structures — widening the talent pool and strengthening legitimacy. Elections and decision-making are structured to balance inclusivity with efficiency, while governance bodies operate with defined mandates, accountability, and alignment to King IV principles. These mechanisms create a system that is open, defensible, & resilient against concentration of power.

Importantly, the model is designed to balance voice with responsibility, not to blur roles or invite interference. 

It does not enable parents to dictate operational decisions, nor does it diminish the critical role that schools and coaches play in shaping the game. Instead, it creates structured channels through which each stakeholder group can contribute appropriately — ensuring that insight informs governance without undermining execution. Schools retain their influence in development and participation, while governance remains disciplined, representative, and accountable. The result is a system where no single group dominates, no voice is excluded, and decisions are made with both legitimacy and practical understanding.