'Cycle of using the women's game as a stepping stone needs to be broken'
A few weeks ago, Sara Cox made history by becoming the first female to referee a men’s Premiership rugby game. The news coverage was extensive, to say the least. The attention flooding in on social media made it one of Premiership Rugby’s most popular Twitter posts to date.
Many have come out to congratulate Sara for this achievement, as did I, and although she has obviously worked extremely hard to have even been considered for the role, for me it raises wider questions in my mind about the women’s game, and where it sits in comparison to the men’s.
If working in the men’s game is seen as a career highlight, what does this mean for the women’s game? If we are framing the men’s game as a career pinnacle, we are also by default framing the women’s game as a steppingstone, which could have negative implications for its sustainability in the future.
The moment history was made…@SaraCoxRef, you're a legend ?#GallagherPrem highlights and #HARvWOR full match replay ?? https://t.co/wgZ8L7g1Kj pic.twitter.com/l0QMvf9kdk
— Premiership Rugby (@premrugby) September 26, 2021
This isn’t just about referees. It’s about everyone working in the game, from administrators right across to coaches. If the men’s game is seen as a promotion, we will constantly be losing talent in the women’s game, meaning we will be stuck in a never-ending developmental phase, which isn’t good for anyone.
Before we start pointing fingers, I want to make it clear that I have thought this way too. When I have had opportunities to work in the men’s game, I was guilty of thinking it was better than working with the women because the men’s game is often held in higher regard. I think, to some degree, we are all guilty of feeding into this unconscious bias, and not holding both games to the same standard. For some reason, and I know I am not alone with this, I almost feel like because the men had accepted me to work with them, that it somehow confirmed I was good at what I do. When in reality, I know that working with both games was equally as good for my broadcasting career.
Some professionals will just want to specialise in either the men’s game or the women’s game, and I don’t have an issue with that. What I am hesitant about, however, is when individuals use the women’s game as a springboard for their own professional gain.
It’s been seen time and time again, when individuals leave the women’s game to pursue opportunities with the men, often leaving teams in difficult situations before crucial matches or tournaments. However, we must bear in mind that these people working in rugby do have careers to consider, and they also, like everyone else who has a job, must make decisions based on what is best for them. I am not blaming these individuals for wanting to pursue the best opportunities available to them, but I am questioning the framing of the opportunities given. Based on this, we must then ask ourselves how we can make the women’s game as attractive as possible, to recruit and retain the best people within the game.
Sara Cox made history by being the first woman to referee a men’s game, but this won’t be the last first we see in rugby. It’s frustrating that we have had to wait so long for something like this to happen and it makes me wonder if we will be seeing more moves like this in the future. For example, will we see more women coaching in the men’s game or even women being selected for head coaching roles in the international game, as this is still a space that is dominated by men.
At what point will the mainstream media be celebrating some one getting a job in the women’s game? If Wayne Barnes decided to referee in a premier 15’s game, I wonder if that would be seen as a similar achievement?
So, how do we now ensure we are retaining talent in the women’s game? I don’t think it’s a simple one-word answer, and I would welcome people’s thoughts on this, as for me it looks like it must be a combination of things.
Do I think that the men’s and women’s games are currently on equal footing? No. This change isn’t going to come overnight either but we must recognise that currently there is a gap in perception between both games and we should be looking at ways to narrow the gap to give the women’s game the best chance of development.
If this issue persists, I fear that the women’s game will suffer a huge drain of talent in the future. We are already seeing hints of this, with individuals using the women’s game to gain experience in certain areas, which then makes them more desirable to future employers in the men’s game. Somehow this cycle needs to be broken.
Money doesn’t grow on trees, and often throwing more money at a problem isn’t necessarily the right route to fixing it. Do we need to take a wider look at the pathways into the men’s game, to make these clearer and ensure the women’s game isn’t used as collateral in this? Should we be focusing on improving the overall standard of the women’s game, to make it more appealing as a long-term career option for those already involved?
I understand that this issue isn’t specific to rugby as a sport and is probably relatable to many other areas of women’s sport in general. Also, this isn’t intended to be a slight on anyone currently working in the women’s game, as I know a vast amount of people who work tirelessly day in day out to promote it.
It is, however, important to be asking the bigger questions like this, to ensure that as we progress, we are building a robust and sustainable route forward, for everyone.
Comments on RugbyPass
Brayden Iose and Peter Lakai are very exciting Super Rugby players but are too short and too light to ever be a Test 8 vs South Africa, France, Ireland, and England, Lakai could potentially be a Test player at 7 if he is allowed to focus on 7 for Hurricanes.
5 Go to commentsPencils “Thomas du Toit” into possible 2027 Bok squad.
1 Go to commentsDon’t see why Harrison makes the bench. Jones can play at 10 if needed, and there is a good case for starting her there to begin with if testing combinations. That would leave room for Sing on the bench
1 Go to commentsWhat a load of old bull!
1 Go to commentsOf the rugby I’ve born witness to in my lifetime - 1990 to date - I recognize great players throughout those years. But I have no doubt the game and the players are on average better today. So I doubt going back further is going to prove me wrong. The technical components of the game, set pieces, scrums, kicks, kicks at goal. And in general tactics employed are far more efficient, accurate and polished. Professional athletes that have invested countless hours on being accurate. There is one nation though that may be fairly competitive in any era - and that for me is the all blacks. And New Zealand players in general. NZ produces startling athletes who have fantastic ball skills. And then the odd phenomenon like Brooke. Lomu. Mcaw. Carter. Better than comparing players and teams across eras - I’ve often had this thought - that it would be very interesting to have a version of the game that is closer to its original form. What would the game look like today if the rules were rolled back. Not rules that promote safety obviously - but rules like: - a try being worth 1 point and conversion 2 points. Hence the term “try”. Earning a try at goals. Would we see more attacking play? - no lifting in the lineouts. - rucks and break down laws in general. They looked like wrestling matches in bygone eras. I wonder what a game applying 1995 rules would look like with modern players. It may be a daft exercise, but it would make for an interesting spectacle celebrating “purer” forms of the game that roll back the rules dramatically by a few versions. Would we come to learn that some of the rules/combinations of the rules we see today have actually made the game less attractive? I’d love to see an exhibition match like that.
29 Go to commentsIrish Rugby CEO be texting Andy Farrell “Andy, i found our next Kiwi Irishman”
5 Go to commentsI certainly don’t miss drinking beers at 8am in the morning watching rugby games being played in NZ.
1 Go to commentsThis looks like a damage limitation exercise for Wales, keeping back some of their more effective players for the last 20/25 minutes to try and counter England’s fresh legs so the Red Roses don’t rack up a big score.
1 Go to commentsVery unlikely the Bulls will beat Leinster in Dublin. It would be different in Pretoria.
1 Go to commentsI think it is a dangerous path to go down to ban a player for the same period that a player they injured takes to recover. Players would be afraid to tackle anyone. I once tackled my best friend at school in a practice match and sprained his ankle. I paid for it by having to play fly-half instead of full-back for the rest of that season’s fixtures.
5 Go to commentsJust such a genuine good bloke…and probably the best all round player in his generation. Good guys do come first sometimes and he handled the W.Cup loss with great attitude.
2 Go to commentsWord in France is that he’s on the radar of a few Top14 clubs.
5 Go to commentsGet blocking Travis, this guy has styles and he’s gonna make a swift impact…!
1 Go to commentsWhat remorse? She claimed that her dangerous tackle wasn’t worthy of a red! She should be compensating the injured player for loss of earnings at the minimum. Her ban should include the recovery time of the injured player as well as the paltry 3 match ban.
5 Go to commentsArdie is a legend. Finished and klaar. Two things: “Yeah, yeah, I have had a few conversations with Razor just around feedback on my game and what I am doing well, what I need to improve on or work-ons. It’s kind of been minimal, mate, but it’s all that I need over here in terms of how to be better, how to get better and what I am doing well.” I hope he’s downplaying it - and that it’s not that “minimal”. The amount of communication and behind the scenes preparation the Bok coaches put into players - Rassie and co would be all over Ardie and being clear on what is expected of him. This stands out for me as something teams should really be looking at in terms of the boks success from a coaching point of view. And was surprised by the comment - “minimal”. In terms of the “debate” around Ireland and South Africa. Nice one Ardie. Indeed. There’s no debate.
2 Go to commentsThere’s a bit of depth there but realistically Australian players have a long way to go to now catch up. The game is moving on fast and Australia are falling behind. Australian sides still don’t priories the breakdown like they should, it’s a non-negotiable if you want to compete on the international stage. That goes for forwards and backs. The Australian team could have a back row that could make a difference but the problem is they don’t have a tight five that can do the business. Tupou is limited in defence, overweight and unfit and the locks are a long way from international standard. Frost is soft and Salakai-Loto is too small so that means they need a Valentini at 8 who has to do the hard graft so limits the effectiveness of the backrow. Schmidt really needs to get a hard working, tough tight 5 if he wants to get this team firing.
3 Go to commentsSorry Morgan you must have been the “go to for a quote” ex player this week. Its rnd 6 and there is plenty of time to cement a starting 15 and finishing 8 so I have no such concerns.
2 Go to commentsGreat read. I wish you had done this article on the ROAR.
2 Go to commentsThe current AB coaching team is basically the Crusaders so it smacks of wanting their familiar leaders around. This is not a good look for the future of the ABs or the younger players in Super working their way up the player ladder. Razor is touted as innovative, forward looking but his early moves look like insecurity and insular, provincial thinking. He is the AB's coach not the Golden Oldies.
10 Go to commentsSimple reason for wanting him back. Robertson wants him as captain. Otherwise he wouldn’t be bothering chasing him. Not enough reason to come back just to mentor.
10 Go to comments