Abstract
Despite the growth in women's sport, decision-making positions in sports organizations remain dominated by men. This paper examines efforts to improve gender balance in roles of leadership using two Australian governing bodies as case studies. To understand how organizations address gender disparities in leadership and high-performance coaching roles, we analyze public-facing strategies and data collected through interviews with participants working in these organizations. Our findings capture how plans and practices tend to frame gender inequity as an individual problem rather than as an institutional or structural one, reflecting core features that scholars explain as postfeminist. Specifically, initiatives primarily focus on enhancing the skills and professional experience of individual women rather than addressing institutional structures that perpetuate gendered forms of inequality. Accordingly, we argue, a policy paradox emerges in that gender equity initiatives can enshrine practices and values that prevent the realization of gender equity, because they direct attention away from institutional issues that contribute to and maintain gendered hierarchies. We conclude by reflecting on how these observations reveal a regulatory pathology, which presents additional challenges for redressing these inequities in sports organizations.
Introduction
Despite significant growth in the professionalism and visibility of women's sports, women continue to be underrepresented in positions of leadership and coaching in sports (Pape, 2020). Australia offers one clear case: although legislation demonstrates a longstanding commitment to addressing gender inequalities in the workplace, 22% of national sports organization (NSO) CEOs are women, 25% of board chairs are women (ASC, 2024a), and 10% of head coaches are women (ASC, 2024b). While there has been some improvement in women's representation in these roles over the past decade, gender inequalities persist despite Australian sports organizations adopting strategies to address them, including through diversity and inclusion policies and gender equity action plans (GEAPs) (e.g., AFL, 2021, 2022a; ASC, 2023). These trends continue even though it has been 40 years since the Australian parliament passed the Sex Discrimination Act (1984), which was in part designed to help ensure women have the same access to jobs and services as men, and over a decade since The Workplace Gender Equality Act (2012) laid out requirements for organizations with over 100 employees to self-report annually on gender indicators.
Why, then, has the dial moved so little in terms of gender parity in executive and high-performance (HP) coaching roles? Scholars have drawn attention to organizational dynamics as one explanation, highlighting how sports organizations value masculinity in both formal and informal processes (Jeanes et al., 2021; Pape, 2020; Sibson, 2010). As such, these normative values are often not recognized as being gendered in nature, particularly not by those who have benefitted from them (Acker, 2000; Dashper, 2019). Yet the growth of GEAPs marks an explicit attempt to redress gendered disparities long observed in sports organizations (Cooky, 2022). In this study, we examine how organizations have attempted to redress the current gender imbalance in leadership and coaching positions through a grounded analysis of Australian sports policy and perceptions of practice. We focus on two major sports organizations in Australia: the Australian Football League (AFL), which governs the most popular spectator sport in the country, and the Australian Sports Commission (ASC), which provides governance guidance and government funding to sports through NSOs and State Sports Organizations (SSOs).
This article illustrates how a policy paradox emerges in practice. Despite the presence of measures explicitly targeting gender inequities in sports organizations, institutionalized structures (which are themselves gendered) remain largely undisrupted. These policies promise greater gender equity across executive and coaching positions, yet the plans implemented by the AFL and ASC retain a narrow focus on women as the sites for intervention, rather than on the organizations themselves. This emphasis reflects scholarly observations about how the rise of individualism in Australian culture has contributed to conditions that negate institutionalized power dynamics (Cheshire & Lawrence, 2005; Gill, 2017). They also align with wider cultural shifts that affect the pursuit of feminist goals whereby an individualistic focus has replaced collective imaginings of societal change—what experts refer to as a postfeminist posture (see Evans, 2015; McRobbie, 2009). Our analysis illustrates these cultural norms as they are manifest in plans aimed at supporting gender equity. The resulting policies and practices ultimately fail to challenge conditions that maintain the dominant power position of men in sports organizations.
In the pages that follow, we first contextualize the gendered dimensions of sports organizations, attending to how masculine notions of leadership and the traditional segregation of sports participation along lines of binary gender inform them (Acker, 1990; Pape, 2020; Sibson, 2010). We discuss the relevant literature on the gendered nature of decision-making positions in organizations, feminist responses to these inequities, and sport-specific observations. We then present an analysis of plans and programs to reduce gender inequity in two case studies—the ASC and the AFL—before reflecting on how they evince embedded values associated with postfeminism, namely notions of individualism, choice, and merit (Benschop & Lewis, 2024; Gill, 2017; Larner, 2000). We also draw on data from interviews with men and women employed in sports organizations to illuminate how they understand organizational plans and their implementation, including shortcomings. We conclude by reflecting on the resulting policy paradox. Although advocating for gender equity plans and policies, sports organizations’ actions divert attention away from institutional structures that require transformation to effect change. We consider how these practices reflect entrenched postfeminist ideologies, limiting the range of governance interventions considered and largely failing to challenge existing power dynamics.
Sports Governance as a Site for Understanding Approaches to Gender Inequity
Cultural and societal norms influence organizations and their practices. Accordingly, Acker (1990) contends that all organizations are gendered, and Hesselbo et al. (2025, p. 249) recognize the field of leadership as “male-produced, male-dominated, and male-identified.” As such, organizational practices touted as gender neutral can maintain an inequitable status quo, with habitual practices performed without being subject to critical scrutiny (Acker, 2000; Knoppers et al., 2022). These characteristics can be amplified in sports. Sports are not only a common site of embodied masculine activities, but also a space that celebrates men and expressions of masculinity (Cooky, 2022). These values extend beyond the sporting field to the governance of sports, where organizational leadership roles are often seen as more suited to men and masculine attributes than women and feminine attributes (Adriaanse, 2016; Burton, 2015; Pape, 2020; Sotiriadou & de Haan, 2019).
A robust body of scholarship investigates why more women are not employed in key organizational and coaching roles in elite sports (Burton, 2015; Demers et al., 2021; LaVoi & Boucher, 2021; Norman, 2010). Disparities between men and women in sports governance boards are well documented, with research capturing beliefs that a lack of suitably qualified women, women's individual choices, and biased recruitment practices perpetuate gender inequity on boards (Adriaanse & Schofield, 2013; Claringbould & Knoppers, 2007; Mikkonen et al., 2021; Sotiriadou & de Haan, 2019). Such beliefs are not limited to men in these organizations: earlier studies have found that most respondents, regardless of gender, believe that women are the cause of gendered disparities in sports organizations because they tend to choose to prioritize family commitments over professional opportunities (e.g., Pfister, 2010). These beliefs contribute to a broader sentiment that individual women are responsible for addressing gender disparities (Adamson & Kelan, 2019).
It is not surprising, then, that a popular solution to a lack of women in leadership is to develop women for these roles. While research on leadership development highlights improved outcomes for some individual women (e.g., Banu-Lawrence et al., 2020; Billsberry et al., 2018; Frawley et al., 2018; Whales et al., 2025), developing individuals can absolve organizations from their responsibilities to address inequitable gender norms and practices (Bacchi, 1999). In addition, the persistence of gender disparities in sports leadership suggests the problem does not stem from underqualified women. It reflects a challenge identified in governance literature: policy solutions that rely on an erroneous identification of a problem invariably lead to the persistence of that problem (Bacchi, 1999).
Similar dynamics emerge in HP coaching. Structural inequities embedded in everyday activities, as well as differing expectations of men and women, contribute to fewer women in elite coaching roles (Madsen et al., 2017; Norman, 2010; Schull & Kihl, 2019). Successful female coaches need to employ resistance techniques to the prevailing discourses around coaching and the attributes of the ideal coach (Knoppers et al., 2022). Further, as women's sports opportunities have grown and some women’s and men's sports governing bodies have amalgamated, coaching has become more lucrative, contributing to more men leading and coaching women's sports (Knoppers et al., 2022; Williams & Green, 2024).
Action plans that address gender inequities, including GEAPS, and development programs specifically for women aim to address these kinds of disparities in Australian sports organizations, yet there remains limited research on the effectiveness of these interventions in sports in practice. Thus, this article offers an initial examination of gender equity policy “in action,” considering how cultural beliefs, ideology, and social conditions affect the implementation of GEAPs and gender action plans. Following Calavita (2010, p. 95), we acknowledge that law and policy “in action” often diverge from what is stated formally or “on-the-books.”
Studying policy “in action” requires attending to context. Given the location of our case studies, it is important to acknowledge entanglements between women's formal economic gains and the rise of neoliberalism in Australia. Following gains from the feminist movement of the 1970s and 1980s, women's increased formal workforce participation preceded neoliberal policies that became popular in 1990s, which emphasized economic competitiveness and market freedom (Cheshire & Lawrence, 2005). 1 These trends coincided with a depoliticization of many feminist activities; the government cut funds to many women's advocacy groups and invested in other forms of expert policy advice, including the creation of three national secretariats focusing on women's issues. These developments contributed to national policy on women's issues becoming more closely aligned with governance agendas that promoted neoliberalism (Sawer & Gray Jamieson, 2014).
The promotion of neoliberalism is not limited to economic agendas; it also emphasizes choice and the individualistic pursuit of empowerment (Cheshire & Lawrence, 2005). Scholars have traced how neoliberal and postfeminist values are “deeply enmeshed” (Gill, 2016, p. 610). Following Gill (2016, p. 620), we suggest postfeminism is a useful lens for engaging “with some of the distinctive gendered features of contemporary neoliberal societies,” particularly for illuminating power dynamics that are not initially evident. For instance, privileging individual agency and autonomy can reinforce assumptions around unencumbered choice. In doing so, they can obscure inequities, because they negate how external forces—for example, institutional structures and organizational practices, and individuals’ different social locations within them—mediate one's circumstances (Adamson & Kelan, 2019; Gill, 2017). The emphasis on choice presumes equal access and equitable opportunities, minimizing the influence of interlocking systems of oppression that materialize along social categories of difference, such as class, disability, ethnicity, and race—a set of concerns well documented by intersectional and First Nations scholarship on gendered inequities in society (Crenshaw, 1991; Moreton-Robinson, 2001), including in sports (Dadswell et al., 2023; McDonald, 2014).
Experts acknowledge that postfeminist positions may recognize gender inequalities, but that they tend to normalize it as the result of “women's own choices” or “natural differences” (Banet-Weiser et al., 2020, p. 5). Recognizing these tensions in sports, sociologists have adopted postfeminism as a lens to interrogate media representations of different sportswomen (Thorpe et al., 2017; Toffoletti, 2016a, 2018); how women's teams are marketed (McDonald, 2000); how sports participation affects expectations of girls in sports (Clark, 2021); and how female sports fans are sexualized (Toffoletti, 2016b). In this analysis, we follow Toffoletti's (2016a, p. 199) advice that the scrutiny of postfeminist sensibilities aids in illuminating “complex and contradictory” dynamics shaping the sports landscape, which “simultaneously marginalizes and empowers sportswomen.” We use these insights to build on observations that contemporary beliefs about gender inform the gendering of organizations and their operational actions (Gill et al., 2017). In this case, we explore how plans and programs designed to overcome gender inequity and related practices reflect—rather than challenge—many gendered norms, including notions that women have equal agency with men and assumptions that women are a cause of gender inequity, either through their personal choices or by needing professional development.
Methodology and Methods
This paper draws on data collected through a larger study on gender equity and inclusion policies and practices in Australian sports. It involved semi-structured interviews with participants (N = 55) working in the sector, document analysis of GEAPs and related organizational and governance plans, and participatory engagement with sports governance representatives tasked with gender equity policy and planning. For interviews, we used criterion sampling to ensure the representation of relevant experience and professional roles, drawing on searches of sports organization websites and snowball sampling to support participant recruitment.
Considering the dominance of cisgender men in sports organizations, particularly in leadership roles, we accounted for core tenets of feminist standpoint theory in our approach to recruitment, because they posit that knowledge generated from under-represented or disadvantaged positionalities offers knowledge that can challenge common beliefs often accepted as truths (Harding, 1991, 2004). According to Harding (1991, p. 127), such knowledge promises to shed light on dynamics “beneath the appearances” of these systems to understand how a “social order is in fact constructed and maintained.” Our sample (N = 55) includes mostly women participants (N = 46) from governing bodies, NSOs, and SSOs and captures reflections on experiences in decision-making roles, as well as those affected by such decisions.
Interview questions addressed participants’ (1) current role and past experience, (2) understanding of gender equity and how they apply these principles in their role, (3) gendered barriers to leadership in Australian sports organizations, and (4) what they saw as the current and future major issues for gender equity in sports. We recorded interviews with participants’ consent, which were conducted in person or via Zoom and ranged from 45 to 90 min in length. We used a professional service to ensure accurate transcription of the recordings. To protect the identity of participants, we use pseudonyms in this analysis and only give a general description of their role.
This paper draws specifically on data collected from participants who have worked in our two case study organizations: the ASC, including associated NSOs and SSOs; and the AFL, which also has governance responsibilities for its elite and state clubs (N = 33, see Table 1). As a statutory authority, the ASC provides leadership and funding to NSOs who govern Olympic sports directly, and via SSOs who govern Olympic sports at the state level in Australia. Olympic sports are generally not as commercialized as other team sports in Australia. The AFL is one of the largest and wealthiest sports organizations in Australia, with a professional league that has 18 independent clubs. Additionally, Australian states have their own semi-professional leagues with independent clubs, and the sport is played at the community level under local administrations. The selection of these two organizations allows us to compare governance approaches to achieving gender equity in leadership for a commercially-oriented organization and a government-focused body.
Breakdown of Participants by Role and Case Study Organization.
Having previously carried out an inductive analysis of the interviews to derive main themes focusing on gender equity efforts across the data collected (Thomas, 2006), this analysis entailed reviewing our initial codes using NVivo (Version 14). We looked specifically at participants from the two case studies, identifying themes related to gendered patterns of power in workplace relations and prescriptions for improving gender balance. Given the emphasis on interventions that targeted training and upskilling individual women in both case study organizations, we revisited the literature on postfeminism to abductively refine these thematic insights, which crystallized around the following: tacit beliefs in individual agency and choice, counter-narratives to formal policy prescriptions, and perceptions of merit-based systems (Tavory & Timmermans, 2014). Throughout the process, we ensured inter-coder reliability by meeting regularly to discuss and refine our analysis after developing initial thematic codes (Braun & Clarke, 2019).
As part of this process, we reviewed the AFL and ASC's publicly available gender equity plans, programs and related vision documents, considering how they reflected and diverged from participants’ reflections (N = 4, from an initial sample of 7). These documents were obtained through web searches and Freedom of Information processes. For this analysis, we excluded documents that only referred to equity in sports participation. A select number of documents were both detailed and prescriptive about plans for improving gender equity: for ASC, it was the Women Leaders in Sport (WLIS) program and the Fixing the Leaky Pipeline Action Plan—Women in High Performance Coaching Project Report, and for the AFL, it was the Workforce Gender Equity Action Plan (2022–2024) and Women's Football Vision (2021–2030). To track organizational statements, policies, proposed actions, and stated goals, we completed line-by-line coding of the documents.
The combined data analysis helped us to glean insights into how policy expressed “on-the-books” in organizational documents compared to policy “in action,” as conveyed by our participants (Calavita, 2010). In addition to capturing perspectives on the nature and implementation of plans, interviews illuminated how participants subscribed to—and sometimes questioned—the ideologies underpinning strategies captured in documents. We concede that this research is limited by access to organizational documents and interview participants. For example, despite our best efforts, we were unable to secure an interview with an AFL Commissioner or Club CEO. In keeping with feminist standpoint tenets, our sample does present knowledge that aids in understanding pathologies that emerge in both case studies.
Findings
Our findings show similarities between the ASC and the AFL in their approaches to addressing gender inequity in leadership. Both focus on interventions aimed at developing and mentoring women to make them more competitive with men when applying for executive leadership and HP coaching roles. There are some points of distinction, though. While the ASC articulates a reliance on merit-based recruitment—which assumes equity in terms of competitiveness—the AFL articulates non-mandated targets as an intervention in recruitment strategies. Together with policies that seek to better accommodate women's perceived differences from men (e.g., women having greater domestic and family responsibilities), the ASC and AFL's plans to develop women seek to create opportunities for women, yet they lack a supporting commitment to assessing outcomes of these interventions. In doing so, the design of these strategies presents a narrowly targeted solution to gender inequity: training women so they can help themselves be more competitive and achieve career advancement.
This approach of both case study organizations promotes individual achievement and tacitly assumes outcomes are within applicants’ control if they choose to pursue these options—both of which are cultural tenets of postfeminism. The policies and practices studied here do not attend to intersectional differences in any detail, framing women as a homogenous group. In doing so, these framings also reflect organizational subscriptions to gender as a binary distinction and does not interrogate assumptions of men's suitability for leadership. In fact, few proposed actions attempt to address institutional or societal hierarchies that contribute to men holding most leadership roles in sports. To illustrate, we present our findings for each case study organization, considering how their strategies reflect and reinscribe postfeminist ideologies. We also compare elements of their approaches, demonstrating that despite differences, they reinscribe similar gendered power dynamics.
ASC: A Focus on Women's Competitiveness to Improve Gender Parity
The ASC is a government-funded statutory authority that provides funding and governance principles for NSOs. Developing women's skills has been a strategy for improving gender equality in leadership roles for the ASC for several years. Since 2002, the ASC's WLIS program has had over 27,000 women participants and has supported more than 800 sports organizations (ASC, 2024c). The WLIS program has several elements. The Executive program supports organizations to undertake a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Assessment and to develop and implement a DEI Action Plan, with an average of 12 organizations benefitting per year since its introduction in 2022 (ASC, 2024c). The Leadership Workshops program enables participants to complete seven online workshops focusing on individual leadership qualities, which have supported 200–300 participants per year since 2002 (ASC, 2024c). The Grants Scheme for individuals and organizations funds women to attend courses that enhance their skills, with an annual budget of around $500,000 in 2024 (ASC, 2024c). As most of the programs and funding for WLIS aim to develop the skills of individual women, the overarching goal of the program is to better equip women to make them competitive for leadership roles.
Similarly, the ASC's 2023 Fixing the Leaky Pipeline Action Plan, which was produced by the Women in High Performance Coaching Project, reflects a focus on individuals. It presents a relatively simple picture regarding the lack of women in HP coaching roles in Australia. It depicts a pipeline awash with coaching opportunities, with the problem being women “leaking” from the system, or leaving coaching. Much of the Fixing the Leaky Pipeline Action Plan focuses on the need to develop women so that they can enter and stay in the pipeline, including recommendations for identifying talent, recruitment, mentoring, and helping athletes transition to coaching (ASC, 2023). These strategies, however, do not interrogate institutional structures and systems that disadvantage women with respect to becoming HP coaches. In short, the emphasis remains on individual leaks from the pipe, rather than the integrity of the pipe itself.
In our research, some participants questioned the effectiveness of WLIS programming, particularly given how long it has been in place. For example, Naomi, an NSO executive, explained that leadership training is “not changing the system… It's giving great development opportunities. And I think we’re beyond thinking that we’ve got to fix the women.” Max, an executive involved with ASC sports, expressed the need for a new approach: Why hasn't the system moved or accommodated to make sure the people that are attending those programs are actually coming through the system? So, I think it's got to be a combination, some programs to accelerate change, but also creating the environment at the top to actually accommodate the change as well.
Jemma, an NSO executive, extends their critique, explaining how a recent roundtable put forth a recommendation for the Government to terminate the program. She reported that many participants felt women did not need further development; instead, “the culture of sport” needed to be addressed. Similarly, another NSO manager, Alice, said, “women are not the source of the problem,” stating that organizations “don’t need to change women; you need to change the culture.” Jemma and Alice highlight a divergence between their perspectives on what is impeding women’s progress in leadership in the ASC system, that is, their focus on organizational culture versus the ASC's flagship program's individualistic emphasis on creating women leaders.
As explained by Emily, an ASC employee, the continuation of the WLIS program is indicative of the organizational desire for “announcables”—in this case, highlighting the number of women who have completed the program to demonstrate the effective use of government funds. This focus has taken precedence over formal program evaluations to assess success. Emily, like many other participants, did not dismiss the benefits of developing individual leadership skills and providing networking opportunities that flow from development programs. Instead, with nearly 30,000 WLIS participants over two decades, she queried the outcome of the program. Jill, an NSO executive, articulated this observation: I'm sure they’re very good intentions, and they’re great programs, but still, what's the purpose? And that's why I think it's been going long enough now, to draw a line in the sand and say, “Is this actually working? What are we trying to get out of this, and why isn't it working? What can we change in the other measures?”
As Emily from the ASC conveyed, merit is an underlying principle for recruiting HP coaching roles: Because you want the best people for the job you have, there is no athlete that is going to turn around and say, just give me a coach. I’ll take the coach that's female versus I’ll take the best coach. No elite athlete is going to do that.
Some women participants, particularly those already in leadership roles, expressed a shared acceptance of merit-based approaches as they discussed their own achievements. For example, Ann, a director on an NSO board, spoke about “working really hard… I get there by my grit as opposed for looking for things to help me get there.” This view reveals a normalized postfeminist standpoint that reinscribes women's accomplishments as singularly theirs, without considering the position of privilege they may enjoy due other aspects of their social identity (e.g., class, ethnicity, sexuality, race).
Another pathway aimed at improving women's competitiveness is mentoring. While the Fixing the Leaky Pipeline Action Plan covers mentorship, the only direct action proposed is to “create a connected alumni of women to enhance networks, mentorship, allyship, and sponsorship” (ASC, 2023, p. 31). This language reiterates a focus on women to engage, mobilize, and support each other, conveying a sense of responsibility for them to effect organizational change rather than on “the gendered system that privileges men” which, as LaVoi and Boucher (2021, p. 190) argue, requires “change [that] must be driven by men.”
Tara, an NSO executive, observed the shortcomings of mentoring programs, sharing that she had spent years running these female mentoring programs, and I put these females into these male-dominated environments, and then they just come straight back. And I almost got to a point where I said, “I’m not going to do this anymore.” We need to fix the environment.
The plan does include some policies designed to remove barriers for women's participation in HP coaching, including assisting NSOs and SSOs to standardize procedures, such as parental leave and recruitment (ASC, 2023). This reflects the ASC's imagined understandings of barriers for women in HP coaching, including child-caring responsibilities and recruitment processes. These interventions do not, however, take aim at institutionalized norms, which most ASC-affiliated interviewees (N = 15) identified as important to address. For example, Amber, an Olympic sport coach, observed, You can invest millions into coach development, coach leadership, empowerment courses, do all of that, but it doesn’t change. It makes you feel more confident going out, but you're going back into the same system where the system is broken. Then a lot of females will leave the sport because the system is broken. [This] actually isn't just a woman issue … the way that these high-performance coaches operate is not sustainable… There are many reasons why women haven't been able to engage in that pathway. But, you know, if we can actually fix the profession, and some of the parameters around it, and the ways of working, it's going to make it a more sustainable and healthy career and more accessible to more people.
Reflecting on these dynamics holistically, Julia, having worked with NSOs and SSOs, stated that organizations need to look internally at their practices and structures: We keep trying to find the reason to blame women for not being in those roles instead of saying, “Hey, what is it about the environment that keeps them away from those roles?” I mean, the funniest analogy that more than one person will give is you don’t blame a flower for not growing. You figure out what's wrong with the soil. And it's like we can't see that same thing.
AFL: Women's Assimilation and Gender Targets to Move Women into Leadership Roles
Distinct from the ASC, the AFL is a not-for-profit company that invests profits into the game (rather than returning profits to shareholders). Each of its 18 elite clubs operate as individual entities with their own governance boards, receiving funds from various sources, including sponsors, the AFL and members. The AFL’s Women's Football Vision (2021–2030) proposes several programs for progressing women into leadership roles, with plans to develop a Women's Coaching and Umpiring Academy, introduce a player-to-coach pathway for AFLW players including education and accreditation models, and create a Women's Coaching Acceleration Program targeting several clubs (AFL, 2021). The AFL's GEAP reiterates the importance of these programs and its GenW Executive Leadership Program, which focuses on accelerating the progress of women already working in the AFL industry into leadership positions within the AFL organization and AFL clubs men's programs (AFL, 2022b). The program aims to achieve this by “developing and connecting our senior female talent” (AFL, 2022a, n.p.). The AFL also sets gender-specific targets: “40%+ of all accredited coaches and umpires in community [are] to be female” and a “40/40/20” 3 goal for “all parts of the AFL organization” (AFL, 2022a, n.p.). The Women's Football Vision (2021–2030) emphasizes the coaches target of the GEAP, adding “50% of AFLW senior coaching positions [to be] held by women” (AFL, 2021, n.p.)
Like ASC policies, the AFL's reliance on programs to develop women advocates women changing to better fit the norms of the AFL so they can excel in its system. In short, they promote assimilation. Alanna, who works with the AFL, conveys an appreciation of this dynamic when she says: My concern, though, is that these programs are only offered to women, because we look at what women haven’t had access to because of marginalization, and we go, “Equity, we have to catch you up, so here's a program to top you up.” And that positions women—or the experience of women—as the problem. Women are not the problem.
Some participants acknowledged that mentoring programs can impose the expectation that women assimilate into existing gendered norms. Sam, who works in the AFL system, says that “some of the women that have been brought up in this system have had to become sort of like the men to be successful.” She also reflects on her own behavior when she describes being “careful” who she talks to about certain issues, such as gender equity, so that she isn’t “marginalized.” Similarly, Jane who also has experience working in the AFL system, who talked about being around football clubs her whole life, shared: Even my psychologist has said to me, “you really need to tap into your feminine side a bit more, because you’ve probably at times become so masculinated because of your drive to see change and be around males all the time, that you, you need to be reminded every now and again to reconnect with your femininity.”
The AFL has developed—or is developing—policies that aim to accommodate women into its existing institutional structures. It has a generous parental leave policy that applies equally to both parents, including employer contributions to retirement savings during periods of paid and unpaid leave. It has also implemented flexible working conditions and has committed to gender balance on recruitment panels (AFL, 2022a). The AFL is also developing a program called “workplay,” which is “a professional network and platform connecting female athletes to flexible work, education and career development opportunities” (AFL, 2021, np). This program, however, has no publicly available measurable targets or specific plans for evaluation, meaning there is no transperant mechanism to formally assess outcomes or to make adjustments to support better outcomes if they are not successful.
The AFL has set gender equity targets, which, unlike quotas, are not mandated, but are aspirational. The AFL's gender targets have not been met. At the time of writing, 28% of AFLW head coaches are women (rather than the targeted 50%), and less than 11% of all accredited coaches are women (target of 40%) (AFL, 2024). The GEAPs 40/40/20 target across all areas of the organization has also fallen short, with neither the AFL Commission or Executive meeting this goal, and only 2 of the 18 elite clubs achieving it on their boards (although 9 clubs do have a ratio of 5 men to 3 women). Given that the GEAP term has ended, the figures above reflect outcomes falling well short of the targets.
Our document review and interviews suggest a lack of mechanisms for enforcing the AFL's gender-specific targets. The AFL nonetheless claims to be “a leader in driving a gender-inclusive organization within the sports industry” (AFL, 2022a, n.p.). Some participants conveyed a belief in these organizational statements. Mary, an AFL employee, for instance, described the AFL as “ambitious” and “being pretty good at meeting targets” without citing evidence or examples to support the assessment. Begeny et al. (2020) caution against such assumptions, finding that individuals who are confident in the reduction of gender inequity in their organizations are more likely to perpetuate it—even without knowingly doing so. The AFL articulates support for the value of gender equity yet simultaneously accepts the status quo of men dominating decision-making positions—an issue likely to persist in the absence regulatory mechanisms to enforce targets.
Some participants framed gender equity targets as primarily performative. Ami, for example, argues the AFL is not willing to adapt its governance arrangements to effect change: “they shit themselves when it comes to really challenging AFL clubs over lots of things.” Ami, working in the AFL industry, observes a reticence to challenge the independent operation of AFL clubs, even though it has set industry-wide targets. Some of Mary's reflections support Ami's observation, indicating that the AFL does not require clubs to meet targets: [The AFL has] generally resisted the temptation to tell clubs what to do. So, we have, because they are in a competition to win. They're in a competition to win money and a lot of it. And they’re in a competition to win members, by extension, making money from that.
While the AFL's Women's Football Vision and GEAP refer to working to achieve an inclusive environment in several areas, they do not articulate specific actions to support its realization (AFL, 2021, 2022a). Most participants associated with the AFL recognized the need for organizational change to enable a more supportive culture for women. For example, they understood the structure of coaching as a profession, including long hours and travel, as a barrier for women. Mary concedes, “I do think there’s an environmental shift or cultural shift that has to happen first. Otherwise, we’re just going to see a lot of women leave at the other end.”
Despite observations that organizational dynamics contribute to inequitable working conditions, some participants would frame these concerns as the result of women's decisions and “individual preference” (Waller & Wrenn, 2021, p. 59). This again reflects the postfeminist sensibility where the onus is on women to pursue individual empowerment. For example, Jane, who works at an AFL club, states: I often fantasize, “Could I be a Head of Football, right? In a men’s program?” And I go, “You know what? I could. But do I actually want that?” Because of the stress, the pressure, the poor life balance… And it’s like, society thinks that it's okay for the male to be overworked and consumed in a high-profile position, because the female will look after the kids and pick up all the other work. So, I just think I’m not sure where the appetite is for women if the positions came available, and they were encouraged and supported to apply. Unless they might be able to change the conditions of the job.
These observations point to a longstanding argument made by feminists, in that “more attention” is needed on “the work and living conditions that women are encouraged to emulate” (Bacchi, 1999, p. 203). Further, the burdens are often greater for women than men when organizations do not address the balance of family and formal work commitments, even when policies seeking to accommodate women are present (Burton, 2015; Sveinson et al., 2022).
While changing organizational cultures and environments are necessary to reshape the expectations of executive leaders and HP coaches, postfeminist sensibilities encourage women to instead adapt to fit existing structures.
One participant, Alanna, explains these dilemmas with an institutional commentary on the AFL: The problem is the system, and it's who runs the system, men at the top… You [senior leaders] have immense power and influence and opportunity to reshape what we do moving forward… We have to unlearn, redesign, and relearn how we do sport moving forward… We do not educate, inform, train up the people that lead the system to make the system different in the future. We just keep fixing the symptom, which is the experience of women.
Discussion and Conclusion
Our findings highlight how the ASC and AFL's efforts to address gender inequity in decision-making and HP coaching roles primarily focus on interventions that aim to help individual women improve their ability to compete for higher-level organizational positions. Despite this policy focus, many participants did not view unqualified women as the main source of gender disparities. Several interviews pointed out the futility of developing, mentoring, and training women when the dominant cultures of sports organizations remain unchallenged. Instead of addressing the gendered nature of sports-related work, the policy emphasis of both organizations reflects a postfeminist sensibility in which individual agency and empowerment emerge as the primary modes for pursuing gender parity. For instance, the ASC's articulated reliance on merit pushes responsibility onto individual women to excel without addressing inequitable conditions. The AFL attempts to disrupt its existing recruitment processes through the adoption of gender targets. Yet, by not enforcing the targets, they are largely symbolic, enabling the AFL to claim it values gender equity without pursuing actions necessary for its achievement.
While policy “on-the-books” promises to support gender equity, the case studies illustrate how policy “in action” makes women visible, while gendered expectations and hierarchies remain hidden. This selective focus evinces their paradoxical nature: that gender equity initiatives can enshrine practices and values that prevent the realization of gender equity. Our findings draw attention to how the ASC and AFL adopt approaches that lack an appreciation of the structural barriers that women face. They exemplify what McRobbie (2004) explains as a tenet of postfeminism: a tacit belief that feminism has achieved its larger aims while accepting that inequalities still exist. Such policies ultimately misidentify the problem of gender equity and its solution (see Bacchi, 1999). They embed practices and values that enable inequities to persist, which we explain in this final section.
Both the ASC and AFL illuminate tensions that result when leaders “portray a concern for people (i.e., women),” but promote policies that “maintain existing power structures” (Sveinson et al., 2022, p. 246). Several participants from the ASC and the AFL raised questions about the nature of sports leadership and HP coaching, including the acceptance of an “around-the-clock” work culture. Some interviews (N = 8) highlighted this work culture as a barrier for women with child caring responsibilities—although not in relation to parental leave (noting both organizations have well-developed policies). Instead, participants identified the expectations of after-hours work for sports executives, and after-hours work and travel required of HP coaches, as limiting their ability and desire to compete for these roles. These dynamics illustrate how these organizations have not addressed the gendered norms around these roles, which are traditionally performed by men and associated with masculinity.
While many participants acknowledged inequitable dynamics within sports organizations, only four participants (all women) spoke about the need for different kinds of support to counteract the barriers that various women face in pursuing sports leadership and HP roles. Although this group drew attention to misguided beliefs relying on narrow constructions of merit, other participants, including some women who had progressed into executive leadership and HP coaching roles, subscribed to postfeminist values and practices that emphasize individual achievement. In these instances, they effectively subscribed to these postfeminist values in not questioning merit as a dominant discourse.
Scholars have long been critical of policies that enshrine merit without addressing exclusionary practices. According to Delgado (1992, p. 1364), they operate like “affirmative action for white people” and other privileged groups, because they aid in “keeping their own deficiencies neatly hidden while assuring that only people like them get in.” In the relation to ASC and AFL policies, development and mentoring practices aimed at increasing capabilities of individual women might help them better fit within existing sports organizations, but they direct attention away from the beneficiaries of inequitable dynamics in these systems. They also enact two interrelated forms of gendered power: (1) defining gender equity in a way that enables organizational environments to remain largely unchanged, and (2) reaffirming binary gender in a way that veils the differential experiences of people marginalized within sports systems.
Analyses of postfeminism illustrate how failing to address institutional conditions that create inequities often results in situations that compel women to leverage individual resources to try to overcome them (Gill & Orgad, 2018). Such options, however, do not exist for all individuals who experience exclusion, particularly when they result from interlocking forms of marginalization. Instead of recognizing these distinctions, both sets of organizational policies studied here treat women as a homogenous group and thus negate the experiences of nonbinary and gender diverse people. These patterns reflect a notable feature of postfeminist sensibilities: a lack of critical attention to “intersectional identities and cultural, ethnic, and national contexts” (Cooky, 2022, p. 915). These practices, in turn, can contribute to a relatively non-diverse group of women progressing to leadership roles (Hamilton et al., 2019) and normalize individual achievement as the mode for progressing gender equity (Gill & Orgad, 2018).
In identifying these patterns and their implications, this analysis has sought to extend scholarship on how sports leaders fail to acknowledge the role of organizational culture in reinforcing gendered inequities or frame women's choices as the cause of gender disparities—and thus seemingly “beyond the control of the organization” (Adriaanse & Schofield, 2013, p. 509; see also Pfister, 2010; Tienari et al., 2005). We have illustrated how gender equity efforts, informed by postfeminist sensibilities, can create regulatory pathologies that preserve gendered inequities in organizations. This observation presents an emergent set of challenges for sports governance: what strategies can help effect change in organizations that claim to address gender inequity but do so in ways that direct attention away from gendered hierarchies? This analysis suggests an increased focus on organizational structures, processes and norms that reinscribe gendered power dynamics, including investigating merit and quotas, embedded assumptions about gendered work and expectations of gendered roles. We are not suggesting that programs that develop women do not have their place but argue they should not be viewed as a panacea to gender equity in HP coaching and executive leadership roles in sport. Moreover, programs and strategic plans within sports organizations that seek to tackle gender inequity should incorporate specific, actionable steps that can be—and are—regularly evaluated.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the interviewed participants for their openness to discuss their experiences in sporting organizations in Australia. We also thank the reviewers for their inciteful input.
Ethical Approval and Informed Consent Statements
The Human Research Ethics Committee at The Australian National University approved our interviews (approval: 2022/134). Respondents gave written consent before the commencement of interviews.
Consent to Participate
Participant consent was obtained from all participants in writing.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Australian Research Council through Discovery Program Grant DP220100880.
Declaration of Conflicting Interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.