As to sport though, that’s a peculiar beast. Article 16 of the Olympic Charter establishes the criteria for the IOC membership, and the membership and various Commissions.
There can be a maximum of 115 IOC members; there’s no requirement in the Charter, that any minimum number be of a specific gender. Article 19 deals with the IOC’s Executive Committee; again, no gender rules at all. But to be fair, more than 40 per cent of IOC members are female. During the past decade, the IOC has doubled female representation among the IOC’s members and taken definite steps to do just that.
As to the international federations and to use two examples, the constitution of World Aquatics (which I had a hand in writing in 2022) only compels that there be at least 13 females appointed to a 40-person governing bureau. The constitution of the International Weightlifting Federation, which I wrote in 2021 but which has since been altered, only guarantees that there will be seven women on a 27-person ruling executive.
After Australia’s lacklustre performance at the 2012 Olympics, the federal government and the Australian Sports Commission implemented the first iteration of mandatory sports governance principles for sports bodies.
The objective being to ensure public money was being used effectively and properly. The ASC rightly identified good corporate governance and administration as fundamental preconditions to qualifying for government funding; all Olympic sport NSOs would rot on the vine without government money.
So no more personal fiefdoms or kitchen table sports administration. What is mandated by the ASC has evolved during the past 12 years, including in relation to gender composition on boards.
For example, Swimming Australia’s constitution already states that people of no single gender can constitute more than 60 per cent of the total number of directors. Many other NSO constitutions contain similar provisions. The constitution of the Australian Weightlifting Federation mandates zilch, but nonetheless a significant number of its directors are women. Blanket gender quotas in corporate governance is a vexed issue.
Almost 20 years ago, Norway introduced laws requiring public and state-owned companies to have at least 40 per cent women directors; the Nordic sky hasn’t exactly fallen in sideways any time since. Other European jurisdictions, including Spain and Belgium, have followed suit to some extent. Again, no catastrophes.
Doubling-down, from the start of this year the Norwegian mandate was broadened, to apply to almost all private companies, partnerships and foundations. Basically, every company of any significance in Norway must have at least 40 per cent female directors.
But such policies are inherently anti-meritocratic, and exist as fodder for the proposition that some appointments lack legitimacy. Dangling financial carrots (or wielding sticks) as a reward, for compliance with gender quotas, is actually tantamount to motivation by coercion.
I’m not a woman. But if you’re a talented and accomplished woman who’s also a potential director, I believe you’d want to be selected based on your qualifications, experience and experience; not be because of your gender.
Sports such as swimming, cycling and athletics are demonstrably prominent in terms of athlete representation in Paralympic competition; and yet none of the corresponding NSOs constitutionally mandate that their corporate boards include former Paralympic athletes, or people with a lived experience of all that it takes to be an elite, Paralympic athlete.
So what is the actual problem which is sought to be solved by requiring that NSOs have a pure gender balance at board level? Is the intention to provide more opportunities for women in leadership? Laudable idea, but invariably, NSO directors aren’t paid.
Loading
Or is the policy underpinned by the idea that having an equal number of women or gender diverse people on boards will result in more excellent high-performance, pathway and grassroots structures and systems for athletes, of all genders? For if sports’ governing bodies aren’t managed for the athletes, and with their best interests at the epicentre, then frankly the organisation should be detonated.
The evidence that compelling NSOs to have half of their board seats filled by female directors will have any direct impact for athletes doesn’t exactly leap off the page. Certainly not when the threatened stick is to punish the athletes by withholding NSO money should their national organisations not comply.
If the best eight candidates to fill eight board seats of an NSO’s boardroom are women, then the board should be comprised of those women. It’s that simple.
Sports news, results and expert commentary. Sign up for our Sport newsletter.