Some stats: In 2004, Division I women's soccer had 201 male head coaches (67%) and 99 female head coaches (33%). In 2009, there were 221 men (69%) and 99 women (31%). In 2014, there were 244 men (74%) and 88 women (26%). [Also, for DI men's teams, there were 198 male head coaches and no female head coaches. Thus men occupied 83% of all DI soccer head coaching positions and women 17%.] This year for women's teams, there are 244 men (74%) and 88 women (26%) [not counting the teams that have male/female co-head coaches].
Based on the anecdotal evidence in the article relating to percentages of women in the coaching courses, one could argue women are over-represented.
I have a basic rule I follow: Never rely on anecdotal evidence. Get a good and large data base and see what the data say. So, how many women, as compared to men, have participated in coaching courses?
I believe there is proof out there, that women players, upon graduation from D1 players are automatically streamlined past USSF "C" license and into the "B" course. Why?
I never understand the cryptology of board sites. People put their lives out there on facebook but are obtuse here. By the way, does anybody know what Andy Defrasne meant by obtuse? I'm with the warden on that one. I don't even know what it means here but it sounds right. So let's see, I'm a CADD man who works in the upper levels of One World, the industry sounds like construction/engineering. I think it's a great field, The female students do receive implicit preferential treatment from professors who's days are brightened by the presence of the fairer sex in their classrooms. They all graduate with multiple offers from desperate companies while the guys are told you're out if you stink. They just aren't interested in it.
Maybe lazy is too harsh a word but I am not sure how to interpret your statement that women are "not being willing to coach club, take licensing courses or be willing to start at the bottom" any other way. It seems you are saying they are not willing to put in the time and effort that men are willing to. What possible non-sexist explanation could exist for this?
I am simply drawing out from the data. The licensing courses aren't gender selective or biased. Perhaps when you get to the A, but for the most part, any reasonable coach just has to pay the money and register. The cost and availability are not gender specific. What other possibility would you propose other than they are not signing up and registering? Seems pretty simple. You said they are saying to themselves "I will not be given a fair shot so why bother." First, that is one possible reason they aren't signing up or aren't willing to start at the bottom. They feel it won't pay off. Precedent (women holding many of the top jobs in our country) says otherwise. I'm sure there are lots of reasons they aren't signing up. Just thought it was interesting that the same article that claimed women aren't getting their chance, also said there are virtually no women taking licensing courses. Those 2 seem directly at odds with each other. I would think because of the lack of qualified women (licenses, experience etc) in the field, that a qualified talented woman would shoot to the top like a cannon. If they "don't want to bother" that seems on them.
You "believe" there is proof out there? Do you "know" there is proof out there? Have you seen it? Where can we all see it? After a couple of minutes of research, here are the prerequisites into the USSF B course: Eligibility In order to be considered for the U.S. Soccer B course, all applicants must meet the following pre-requisites: At least 18 years of age Have held a U.S. Soccer C license for at least 12 months -OR- meet the waiver guidelines Have 3 or more years of coaching experience (any level) Currently coaching Currently working in appropriate soccer environment for the course content -OR- have the opportunity to work with a team of the appropriate level for the course content in order to complete the assignments (internship, etc.) And here are the waiver guidelines: Waiver Guidelines Applicants who hold certain foreign licenses or have a minimum amount of professional playing experience may be considered eligible without holding the U.S. Soccer C License. Minimum pre-requisites: UEFA B License or higher (or similar) -OR- Applicant has five (5) years coaching experience, at any level, AND five-(5) years playing experience with a Senior National Team and/or five-(5) years playing experience on a FIFA recognized “1st Division” professional team. Official proof of playing and coaching experience must be provided via letterhead from the affiliated clubs, leagues, or organizations. There's nothing about a waiver into the B course for a NCAA Division I player, male or female. So I'm wondering, where did you get your information? Who told you that? Let's try to track down the source.
As a father of 3 girls that have all played Div I sports I find the fact that the percentage of female coaches is actually declining to be really sad. Soccer is the one of the largest participation women's sports in the country (if not the largest?) and if any sport was going to attract women coaches, I would think this would be it...but I guess it is just because women don't want to coach and men do...
You willfully misunderstand my point and ignore the long history of discrimination against women in this country. Let women run, coach, and ref female sports. There's almost no chance they'll get hired to do the same in male sports. Women will be as competent or as incompetent as men.
So you want to live in a world where people are hired and fired based solely on their gender? Great idea. Very forward thinking.
Next time you attend an ECNL Event, even at the regional weekend level, what you will find is over 95% of the highest level club coaches are...male. When all those women that feel they are being victimized by not being hired start "lowering" themselves to earn their stripes at the club level...then you might see a more consistent hiring pattern.
As someone who hires at the club level, this is plain bullshit. It's not about women not being willing to coach at that level at all. I regularly speak with many young female coaches who are more than willing to do the dirty work at the bottom, but even then they struggle for opportunities and more likely advancement. You talk about ECNL...start lower. Go to a lower state league match and that's where you will see more female coaches, but too often they're stuck at that level. I hire both male and female coaches. Guess which ones are more difficult to get agreement from the board to approve? We recently hired a female coach with over 10 years of experience as a Division I coach to help with one of our teams. Two male board members objected to her hiring because she had too much experience. Excuse me? This is unfortunately not uncommon. The warped creativity on display when board members conjure up objections or arguments against hiring female coaches in astounding. Bottom line, this is an issue fraught with complex layers that is worth discussing. Sadly, in our society debating issues of complexity and nuance is not a strong suit; most would just prefer to yell at each other and retreat to comfortable sides of an ideological spectrum without any consideration for middle ground let alone the other side.
So the answer to gender discrimination is gender discrimination? There are women at the top levels of the game in this country and around the world. The issue is that people are being discriminated. For you to come on and say things like "Administrators should look to hire women first." is as sexist as what you perceive something else to be. P.S. Anson was the best person for that job. Had you been hiring, UNC and soccer would not be as synonymous.
Natural order of family, Simple motherhood attrition as with any industry. 32-33-34 years after "mr. mom", didn't matter, male still primary bread winner, female still likes being home with kids. Go to any school drop-off/pick-up, the moms are happy as clams. Especially this tenuous industry, they can't put dad at home.
Have been reading this thread and also read the article. Women do not get streamlined just for D1 playing experience. CPThomas has the correct waiver info. I think it's absurd that women complain that they do not have opportunities - yet they do not take the time to get the experience and licensing. Sorry, can't have it both ways by saying you can't get a job, but didn't put in the preparation to get said job. It's true about licensing and it's rare to see more than 4-5 female coaches attend a course. In this article Amanda Cromwell said that women need to keep talking about the subject in order for to change. I agree with that, but disagree in that this is all it takes. It takes women going to courses and showing initiative to prepare themselves. The problem is now even being called out by other older female coaches. I have heard other experience older female coaches say that they are disappointed that current younger female coaches don't put in the time to hone their craft, attend licensing, and yet expect to get full time jobs (and in many cases get full time jobs). Part of this millennial generation I assume, grow up with participation trophies and be told how special you are and expect to get a job without putting in the tough dirty work and grind. I believe the sexism goes AGAINST men. There are AD's out there that want to only hire female coaches. So they only bring in female candidates, and don't even bother bringing in more qualified male candidates. That is the true definition of sexism and I am waiting for the day an AD gets legal action taken against himself/herself for doing this. There are people that will say females don't get male team coaching jobs - to which I say apply for those positions and if you're qualified you'll get looked at. But females don't apply for those jobs so it doesn't happen. As for the example of Lori Chalupny she should be higher than where she is. But she is the exception and not the norm. The norm is underqualified females getting jobs that they're not prepared for and doing their programs and those kids a disservice.
Unfortunate that happens at the club level and it shouldn't be that hard to hire qualified candidates. Doesn't happen at the college level most times qualified females get the positions these days. Seems there is a big difference in hiring practices between club and college.
Hey, a zinger! good one. Sexism means that one sex assumes it's better than another--guess which one? You misuse and misunderstand the word.
Actually it doesn't mean that. Feel free to crack a dictionary. Discussion with you is very difficult. Your take that women should coach women is "sexist." Sexism is the prejudice, stereotyping or discrimination based on gender. And your comment that AD's should hire women first is both illegal and sexist. I don't know how else to say this. Any hire based on gender is discriminatory. I do think this is ironic coming from a UNC fan who has won 21 national championships under the leadership of a man. Short of you having a reasonable contribution to this conversation (other than your daughter has had some bad male coaches) I will move on. Any hire should be made based on qualifications, fit, experience etc.
I disagree and believe the women's game would take a step back if this happened. Having hired a lot of assistant coaches over the years (of both genders) I can say there seems to be at the college level a lot more qualified male than female candidates for positions. I think this is mostly due to the fact that there are a lot more males wanting to coach than females. A lot of good people have developed the game in this country, both male and female and I don't think simply having women coach women would make the game better. A had the pleasure of getting to know Tony DiCicco somewhat and I believe this guy made a huge impact on the women's game for example. We want the best coaches coaching women in this country not simply someone of a particular gender.
If I understand the essence of what you're saying correctly (which may not be the case), it's that of all the men and women who aspire to be Division I college coaches, the "qualified" proportions, male to female, are 85% to 15%. Those are approximately the actual numbers.
Yes CPThomas, I believe you get the essence of what I am saying. In an earlier stat you said the ratio of college coaches is 74% male, 26% female. And qualified coaches out there is 85% male, 15% female. So females are actually overrepresented when looking at qualifications and the numbers, not the other way around. This thread is titled Soccer's Ugly Sexism. Sexism against who? Based on this it is male coaches. People will say that I am sexist for making this argument. To which I say I WANT more female QUALIFIED coaches. It's absolutely a good thing for fhe women's game. I would like to see more females coaching club and attending licensing and then have them on college and higher club level sidelines. There is a need for experienced female coaches that needs to be filled. Put in the work and grind to earn that level in this profession.
And to the notion that "I will never rise in the game so why bother?" Here is the career path of what most consider to be the top females in the game Amanda Cromwell: asst at UVA , Head Coach UMBC, Head Coach UCF, UCLA Head Coach Erica Walsh: Assts at Dartmouth and Bucknell, Asst FSU, Head Coach Dartmouth, Harvard, Head Coach Penn St Ange Kelley: Asst at Tenn, Head Coach Tenn, Head Coach Texas Janet Rayfield: Asst Arkansas, Head Coach Arkansas, Head Coach Illinois Becky Burleigh: Head Coach at Berry, Head Coach at Florida Nikki Izzo-Brown: Asst WV Wesleyan, Head Coach WV Wesleyan, Head Coach WVU Karen Hoppa: HS Coach, UCF Asst, UCF Head Coach, Auburn Head Coach Theresa Romagnolo: USD Asst, Stanford Asst, Dartmouth HC, ND Head Coach Karen Ferguson: Asst Boston U, Asst UCONN, Head Coach Louisville Lori Walker: Asst Maryland, Head Coach KU, Head coach OSU. Just don't see where the statement that there is no hope for women. This was off the top of my head. Some had stellar playing careers, but others did not. I would say for talented females who have ambition, talent and are wiling to work, the sky is the limit. You could argue they are fast tracked in many instances. Name the male who's first job was an ACC Asst job, Then Big 12 Head Coach then Big 10 Head Coach? Most if not all of these women have had successful careers. I am no in NO WAY saying they shouldn't be there. They are some talented and bright coaches. Just don't see where the comments that they are being oppressed comes from.
This is a great post as is the post by Trustee. Women who want to have a career in the college game get fast tracked. Cromwell is just playing this BS sexism card. There are many jobs where women get hired because of their gender: I'm willing to be that's why the Oregon coach was hired after a less than impressive head coaching stint. Those of us in the college game can all attest to hearing that 'such and such a school has to hire a female assistant' even if they aren't as qualified as some male counterparts. The article is a total joke and not representative of what is really happening. If you are female and want to coach D1 it is much easier for you than a male.