Surprised I'm the first one to see this article: https://www.sbnation.com/2017/6/27/15873624/soccer-female-coaches-sexism
You've got to be kidding! How many more qualified men are losing job opportunities to unqualified women? I'll bet that more unqualified women have gotten jobs over the last 5-10 years! Amanda, maybe those "particular" refs in Memphis are just idiots! First shot fired lol
Excellent article, thanks for sharing. No surprise that white-privilege and male-privilege culture will discount and deny. Great hearing what Chalupny and Averbuch had to say.
The article seemed to contradict itself. On one hand it complained that qualified female coaches weren't getting promoted to positions of authority. In the next sentence it was saying that women simply don't attend coaching courses. If women are not taking the time to attend coaching courses, wouldn't that be more an indictment on the lack of interested females vs qualified ones?
I am not disagreeing that male privilege exists. There is a complete lack of females coaching. In the article what I heard was "Coaching courses are hard to get to and expensive so it is difficult to go." Are they less expensive or easier to get to for men? I would think any argument that qualified women are being overlooked would include "Look at all of these women getting licenses who are being passed over." Not "Women aren't attending coaching courses at all." Food for thought.
For reference, for the 2017 year, there are 242 male head coaches and 88 female head coaches. That does not include Marist, which at least on line still doesn't identify a head coach; and it does not include teams that have a male-female head coach pair. For the 2014 season, there were 244 males and 88 females. So, the numbers have remained essentially the same for four years, notwithstanding that who the actual coaches are has changed.
The real observation, I think, is not at the head coach level, but at the assistant coach level. How many men right out of college are given full time assistant roles in women's soccer?
I am sure that most of the men that are doing the hiring (and it is probably overwhelmingly men making these decisions) think they are hiring the "most qualified" candidate. The reality is "most qualified" is very subjective and men tend to hire men even if the qualifications of a woman are equal. Most organizations have to deal with this issue in their efforts to increase the representation of women and minorities. It takes a conscious effort to offset this bias and sometimes that means giving the tie to the woman or hiring what might appear to be a slightly less qualified candidate. In reality, not much of real importance hinges on the success of a women's college soccer program so it is definitely an area where enlightened colleges should be mandating women coaches.
I think at the upper levels of D1 soccer though the other can be true that at times female coaches get positions just because they are female. Look at how many female coaches are in power 5 positions: WVU (well deserved) Penn State (well deserved) Ohio State (not sure) Miami (probably only got the job because of gender) Texas (same as above and done badly) Oregon ( same as above) Minnesota (well deserved) Indiana (see Texas/Oregon ) DePaul (well deserved) In the cases of Oregon and Miami especially they were hired because they were female. So sometimes the system works the other way too.
Just to be clear: Every current Division I men's soccer coach is a male (at least, was in 2014 when I did my first study) and probably was hired, among other things, because he is a male. What do you think the chances would be for any woman who applied for a DI men's head coaching position to get hired, no matter how great her qualifications?
I'll bet if her qualifications were in the same ballpark as her counterparts she would get an interview.
I actually did a study on this for my masters program. I studied the lack in number of female coaches, the lack of sustainability, and the lack of success in women's soccer, volleyball, and softball,. Soccer now has only 3 women who have won a national championship (which is the ultimate goal). Volleyball had none as of a few years ago when I did this. Softball had the most, but less of lately. What I found with soccer was age being the biggest factor. A lot of the female coaches want to go right from playing, to coaching in college without taking the time to gain experience as a youth/high school coach or taking coaching licenses. Side note - having benefits was stated as the biggest reason for coaching at this level and not youth/high school. However, it is tough to think anyone will be successful in any profession if they start at the top and never gain the experience needed to be successful (How many companies hire their CEO/CFO/COO or Vice President right out of college). In my study found that the average age of female assistants in women's soccer was 26 as compared to the average age of 38 of male assistants. They do not take the time to coach club soccer, high school, be a volunteer which is the path you see from a lot of others who stay in the profession and have success. This may not be the case for all so I am not trying to generalize. Here is the latest example UC Davis - Just hired an assistant coach who has never coached ever, was actually an undergraduate medical intern. She had a good playing career in college, that is her resume. I think (my opinion) club soccer needs to take responsibility and start hiring more of these former female players out of college. This will give them experience, and assist with help paying for coaching courses. I also think (my opinion) it is extremely important to have a female on staff, I would be ok with the NCAA mandating this. I think having a role model, someone they can relate to, their knowledge and experiences are very important to these young ladies.
This seems true. Even the article mentioned that "taking courses was difficult and costly." There seems to be an odd dichotomy where women are making an argument that they are not given opportunities while at the same time not being willing to coach club, take licensing courses or be willing to start at the bottom. They then retire early due to family reasons. Any non-sexist person would say that any good organization needs a diverse staff in many ways in order to function in a well balanced manner. The problem does not appear to be thousands of qualified women sitting around frustrated that they are overqualified for the jobs they are being offered. Rather a group of women frustrated that they had to go to coaching schools or coach club in order to work their way up.
You missed Auburn Louisville Notre Dame South Carolina Boston College Florida Plus you just had one at Xavier took the job and left after 4 months Bigger mid major schools with female head coaches USF UCF Boston University BYU
I work in an industry that is desperate to increase the number of women in management. The pay and benefits are excellent and we try to make the workplace as accommodating and flexible as possible but we still have trouble attracting women candidates. When I go to colleges on recruiting trips and ask young qualified women why they don't apply the most common response is "it is a male dominated business which will make it harder for me to succeed despite my qualifications". The point is that I don't think you can attribute the lower number of female candidates with laziness or unwillingness to put in the time. I'm sure many look at the system and say I won't get a fair shot so why would I bother. It's easy to blame it on the women but that just perpetuates the status quo.
devad, very accurate and valid post! Look at the Girls DA Technical Advisor appointments and the U14-U20 YNT appointments. Is that sexism? I don't know what's a bigger joke: The DA and YNT staffs or the rationale in the written piece that is the topic of this forum.
I'm an old white guy who's had a daughter go through club basketball and soccer and school sports from middle school to college soccer and have always thought that most female teams on every level, amateur and pro, should be coached by women. Leaving aside sexism, lots of incompetent male coaches have coached my son and daughter-- hell, me and all my brothers as well, in all sorts of sports on every level. In my humble opinion, administrators should look--and look hard-- to hire women first. It seems painfully obvious.
I don't know anything about the YNT programs. What is the issue with the coaching staff that makes them a "joke".
1. I never said they were lazy. The argument that it is difficult so I won't even try, feels a straw argument. Either way, it does not seem there are tons of overqualified women not getting jobs rather a lack of women in the profession in the first place. 2.There is a very strong precedent against "I won't get a fair shot so why would I bother?" There are lots of women at very high levels. Our National Team Coach, Texas, UCLA, Penn St, Notre Dame, FL etc. You could argue those are the top jobs in the country. Not sure that argument holds up very well against actual precedent.
You give this whole discussion a very very bad name. The "lots of incompetent male coaches have coached my son and daughter" therefore "administrators should look hard to hire a woman first" is asinine. Incompetence is not gender specific either way. It's college athletics. It's played at a very high level. First off it is illegal to hire based on gender. 2nd of all it is awful hiring practice. Administrators should look for the BEST candidate. If those administrators miss an amazing coach because they are gender biased, they lose out.
Thanks for doing that and it just goes to show how many females coach at 'big schools.' Also I agree with statements made that some female coaches with no experience get a D1 job straight away. It's a joke and I don't see that happening with male coaches. There may be some issues with the prevalence of male coaches but I don't think it is any where near the way this article makes out.