Gender Equity in Coaching

A new study conducted by Penn State and funded in part by the NCAA has found that the number of female coaches has declined since the passage of Title IX, despite the incredible increase in the number of female athletes in that same period. ("Equity in coaching declining as more men coach women," Penn State Live, 08/19/05).

A number of people have weighed in with potential rationales for these numbers. Robert Drago, a professor of labor relations and women's studies quoted in the article, feels that "sex discrimination, extreme workloads, family-unfriendly jobs and the fact that race and sexual orientation remain important" could all be reasons. He also states that many female athletes prefer male coaches. Prof. Phil Miller picks up on this and speculates as to why this preference may exist.

But has gender equity in coaching really declined? The article about the study states, "Female athletes are half as likely to have female coaches today than they were before enactment of Title IX in 1972, even though there are 10 times more female athletes to feed the pipeline to coaching." I am not a numbers wiz (which is why I got into law), but this seems to be saying to me that the number of female coaches has NOT declined, but has simply failed to keep pace with the meteoric rise of female athletes. Using simpler numbers, there were 10 female athletes and 2 had female coaches prior to Title IX (so 20% of female athletes had female coaches). Using the numbers in the study, there are 100 female athletes today (10 times more), but only 10% have female coaches ("half as likely"). This still means, though, that there are 10 female athletes with coaches today, up from 2. Thus, there are 5 times more female athletes with female coaches than before Title IX.

This represents a sizeable gain in the number of female coaches, even if the growth does not match that of female athletic participation. And the fact that the number of female coaches has not kept pace with the number of female athletes does not strike me as odd. After all, a great number of coaches have played the sport on the level at which they coach. The continued growth of female athletic participation results in the number of female athletes always exceeding the number of the previous decade. Only as the number of female athletes levels off will the previous generation be able to keep up in producing female coaches. In addition, some of the rationales proposed by Prof. Drago and Prof. Miller may continue to have relevance over time.

This study does not reveal a problem -- a growth of 500% is not a problem (and certainly not a decline). And some of its solutions (i.e., make coaching jobs "more family friendly") border on ludicrous. Athletic departments, athletes, fans and schools like to win -- as in any job, coaches that work harder often perform better. Coaching is not a 9-to-5 job and anyone who gets into the profession (male or female) knows that. Athletic organizations should not use this study as an excuse to adopt an "affirmative action" rule for women in coaching, like the NFL rule which requires interviewing and considering minority candidates for head coaching positions. The number of female coaches has increased substantially without such a rule, and as the number of ex-female athletes begins to keep pace with the current participation of females in athletics, the percentage of female coaches will continue to grow.

Posted in: