I think that it’s likely that a field which wasn't a monopoly would more rapidly evolve better systems for dealing with reports than a monopoly, in part because the discussions between participants on the other side and the industry would be more likely to be open discussions about industry-wide arrangements rather than confidential one-on-one negotiations, and in part because failing to deal with them would be a potential short-term competitive benefit (avoiding a narrow scandal) that would have long-term competitive adverse consequences (the greater scandal of more abuse plus neglect and coverup.)
But without competition, the pressure to deal with problems is less, until the consequences become existential even in the absence of competition, which requires them to get extremely bad (cf, USA Gymnastics.)
Complaints of all kind probably go unheard because Varsity knows they're the only game in town. Of course sexual predators wouldn't "just go away", but that's not a reasonable expectation to have, but it is reasonable to expect companies to not ignore such complaints. Without a monopoly, for example, you can apply pressure on Varsity to do something about complaints by going with Nike next time or by getting Nike to do something about it.
I think the article does a good job of explaining this...
If the governing body is beholden to a company, then the company's priorities (money) will be what the they care about. Which I think is what happened here.
I also think the the courts allowing large interests to bully smaller individuals, such as the lawsuit against a non-sanctioned competition, needs to be addressed. Either Varsity is a gatekeeper, or it isn't - if it isn't, how could it possibly have a say in what competitions a gym competes in.
A monopoly is maybe "what", but these other violations are "how".
Here is an excerpt that goes into more detail (with some details omitted for brevity):
> ... Varsity might have preferred to do little about the sexual abuse allegations. ... Varsity was protecting high-profile cheer celebrities because those celebrities were valuable recruiters for the sport. ... there may have been other reasons, like ... blackmail or ... certain officials didn’t think ... it was a big deal. But a more likely reason is simply that, as a monopolist, Varsity, didn’t have to. There was nowhere else ... to go ... because Varsity could retaliate ... by having them exiled from the sport. Being able to crush someone’s livelihood is power.
For extra emphasis:
> But a more likely reason is simply that, as a monopolist, Varsity, didn’t have to.
The author is further talking about "absentee ownership". That is, using their power to keep a grip on the monopoly without incurring any of the responsibility for maintaining it. The author's argument is that turning a "blind eye" to this and other types of abuse is a consequence of monopolies. The way I read it is that this is not so much a central tenet but a common symptom.
As far as I can tell this is the sum up of his assertion that Varsity is responsible for sexual predators in cheerleading. Everything else is about Varsity having a monopoly on cheerleading and monopolies are bad - both of which are arguably true but I think dodges the question of why sports like this are full of sexual predators, who is actively allowing this, and how can they be stopped.
Sexual predictors aren't going to go away if monopolies are busted up. I think conflating the two is more about headline grabbing than a serious examination of a real problem.