Gender inequality in Canadian interuniversity sport: participation opportunities and leadership positions from 2010-11 to 2016-17

ABSTRACT

Combining results from four separate studies of gender equality in Canadian interuniversity sport, which were conducted biennially across four academic years (2010–11, 2012–13, 2014–15, and 2016–17), this paper analyses gender inequality in both athletic participation opportunities and leadership positions (coaching and administrative) across the 56 universities that comprise U SPORTS, the pan-Canadian governing body for Canadian interuniversity sport. Our findings indicate that Canadian interuniversity sport is characterised by persistent and ongoing gender inequality in both the opportunity to participate as an athlete and employment in leadership positions. We analyse these results in light of the historical struggle for women’s opportunity in Canadian interuniversity sport and the development, but apparent lack of implementation, of U SPORTS’ gender equity policies. We also critique the failure of U SPORTS and its member universities to act on the persistent gender inequality identified in our data, despite policy impetus to do so, and provide policy recommendations to address these inequalities.

KEYWORDS:

• Canadian interuniversity sport
• gender equality
• gender equity
• university sport
• U SPORTS

Disclosure statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Notes

1. U SPORTS rebranded from Canadian Interuniversity Sport/Sport Interuniversitaire Canadien at the start of the final season we analysed (2016–17). For the sake of clarity, we use ‘U SPORTS’ throughout the paper when referring to the four seasons for which we collected data, rather than switching between the two organisational names.

2. It is possible, of course, that the unequal representation of girls and women among athletes and sport leaders reflects a lower interest in pursuing such positions. However, recent research on girls and women’s participation in Canadian sport does not single out the number of opportunities as a major barrier, but rather the poor quality of opportunities, including a hostile environment (Canadian Women and Sport 2020). Further, research on Canadian interuniversity sport reveals that structural barriers affect the quality and availability of women’s athletic opportunities (Hoeber 2007) and coaching (Kerr and Ali 2012).

3. These studies were published by the Centre for Sport Policy Studies (University of Toronto) in open-access reports. The 2010–11 and 2012–13 studies were published separately (Donnelly et al. 2011, 2013), while 2014–15 and 2016–17 are forthcoming in 2021 in a comparative report (Norman et al. forthcoming). Parts of this paper are adapted from these reports.

4. The number of universities grew over the course of the four studies. In 2010–11, there were 52 universities. Two universities joined CIS/SIC by 2012–13 (both in CWUAA) and an additional two joined by the 2014–15 season (one in CWUAA and one in OUA).

5. The only exception is a women’s rugby sevens competition organised by CWUAA. It appears that the athletes on rugby sevens teams also compete for their universities’ rugby (union) teams.

6. This view of proportionality was adapted from the first part of the three-part legal test of Title IX in the USA, namely: ‘[to] have the same proportion of women on sports teams as there are female undergraduates’ (quoted in Beaubier 2004, p. 1).

7. The Transgender Policy (Policy 80.80.5) was instituted in late-2018 (U SPORTS 2018a, 2018b). While the Policy brings U SPORTS into compliance with other high performance sport organisations in Canada, it was introduced without any attempt to update or implement the overall gender equity policy (see Teetzel 2019 for a critique of U SPORTS’ Transgender Policy).

8. For the 2010–11 report see Donnelly et al. (2011), for 2012–13 see Donnelly et al. (2013), and for 2014–15 and 2016–17 see Norman et al. (forthcoming).

9. A small number of athletes compete on several teams, most commonly separate cross country and track and field teams. Because the studies were concerned with opportunities to participate on university teams, we counted the total number of roster positions rather than the total number of athletes. Thus, two sport athletes were counted twice because they occupy two roster positions.

10. 49 of the U SPORTS member universities are Anglophone and one is bilingual, and these 50 institutions were contacted in English. Six universities are Francophone, and were contacted by a French-speaking research assistant.

11. No examples were found of individuals in these positions who identified as other than women or men.

12. We recognise that this methodological decision might provide an illusion of equality where there is in fact a discrepancy between the number of men and women athletes on such teams. With the exception of a small number of figure skating and cheerleading teams included in the study, all of which had larger numbers of women than men athletes, it was common for teams (e.g., track and field, swimming, wrestling, golf) to either have approximately equal number of men and women athletes or more men than women athletes. As such, it is possible that we are implying a degree of equality that does not exist (i.e., if these teams are disproportionately filled with men athletes).

13. Teams that did not have a coach were typically club teams that appear to be largely student-organised and self-funded (e.g., through member fees).

14. The number of assistant coaches varied widely between universities, from fewer than 10 to over 100. Further, within the same university, some teams featured large coaching staffs with numerous assistant coaches, while other teams had no assistant coaches at all. The 12 U SPORTS competition teams typically had the largest number of assistant coaches; football teams, specifically, had the largest coaching staffs, often with 10 or more assistant coaches (all of whom were men).

15. Accurate annual enrolment data was not consistently available for some universities. In these instances, we used the most recently available data or extrapolated from the available percentages of full-time vs. part-time students and/or women vs. men students in relation to the total number of enrolled students. A small number of universities do not distinguish between full-time and part-time enrolment in their published data, and for those universities we included the entire student population. All instances in which any of these approximations were used are noted in the individual reports (Donnelly et al. 2011, 2013; Norman et al. forthcoming).

16. Almost 50 years ago (1970–71), women held 13% of all full-time positions at Canadian universities, and it is likely that a proportion of those women were coaches of women’s varsity teams (a position that was often combined with a faculty position). In 2017–18, women held 40% of the full-time positions at Canadian universities (Statistics Canada 2019) while our 2016–17 data show that women held only 16% of the head coach positions – and it is likely that a number of those coaching positions were not full-time.