On #IWD2016, we look at recent FIFA 'reforms' related to women in football
The stars have aligned for 8 March to be International Women’s Day as well as the morning after the Matildas qualified for the Olympic Games for the first time since 2004. Congratulations to all the players, coach Alen Stajcic and all support staff on the achievement. It’s wonderful to have an Australian football team at the ‘second biggest show on earth’ in Rio later in the year.
An article by James McGrath suggested that there was a cause-and-effect relationship between the modest, but welcome, pay rise granted to the Matildas and their performance in the Asian qualifiers for the Olympics. The Matildas have previously performed strongly and have never lacked motivation, but it does serve to illustrate the broader issue of the gender pay gap in sport and elsewhere.
When I wrote about the FIFA reforms for Sporting Intelligence I referred to the measures aimed at greater recognition of the role and promotion of women in football as a combination of ‘easy pickings’ and ‘missed opportunities’. That is not to take away from Moya Dodd who convened a committee that put the proposals together in a paper that pick-up on some of the issues I identified in 2013. However, as #NewFIFANow stated in relation to all the ‘reforms’, they are the bare minimum for the times.
The ‘reforms’ entail:
“that FIFA should recognise women represent the biggest growth and development opportunity to football and that football governance at all levels needs to include more women ...”
an increase in the number of women on the new FIFA Council with a mandatory minimum of one woman Council member per regional confederation, and
that FIFA’s own statutory objectives must include promoting the development of women’s football, the full participation of women at all levels in football, that women must be respected and there must be gender equality in all aspects of football.
The first is a motherhood statement; the second is an old-fashioned quota system; and the third is some nicely-formed words.
So on International Women’s Day, let’s look at what FIFA could have done when it passed its reforms.
Instead of a quota arrangement, FIFA should have opted for targets. A quota seldom leads to systemic, attitudinal or cultural change. A target – especially one accompanied by a funding or other incentive or disincentive – requires football associations and confederations to change the way they see and do things in the long-term.
They could have addressed the fact that women “represent the biggest growth and development opportunity” – an issue I characterised in 2013 as ‘no taxation without representation’ – in a number of ways. For example:
They could have set aside a proportion of development funds targeting the development of women’s football. As it is, the new old FIFA President, Gianni Infantino, used the Sepp Blatter Playbook to get elected by promising substantial increases in money to football associations and confederations, so why not target some of this specifically at women’s football?
They could have committed to increasing the number of teams participating in the Women’s World Cup. After all, they did so for the men’s tournament from 32 to 40 by 2026 (which will pose a significant challenge to many potential bidders of future tournaments), so why not the women’s tournament?
They could have agreed to increase the prize money available at the Women’s World Cup. As Brendan Schwab pointed out on Twitter, 750 million people watched the 2015 Women’s World Cup with only 0.26% ($15 million) of 2011-2014 revenue being allocated in prize money. The Men’s World Cup involved $576 million, or 10.1% of total revenue, in prize money.
They could have provided seed funding to increase the number of football associations that have a dedicated national women’s league from the current level of 163 (78%), and/or to sponsor regional tournaments especially in areas such as Oceania, parts of CONCACAF, Africa, CONMEBOL and our own Asian confederation.
They could have underwritten a program to get more girls playing football in more countries. FIFA’s own data indicates that there are around 1.17 million participants in Girls for Grassroots programme, and 4.8 million registered players worldwide – so the scope for improvement is enormous.
They could have broadened the offering of women’s football tournaments at the elite level. For women, there are four major tournaments; for men, there are eight. Beach football and futsal would be two good formats for the game to expand into for women.
Where the reforms fail most is in their lack of rigour around what the 209 football associations and the six confederations are required to do. This applies as much to the issue of advancing women in football as it does to the other measures.
Instead, the ‘reform committee’ full of sporting insiders has come up with nothing stronger than associations and confederations “should comply with the principles of good governance” and listing some minimum provisions that are either already enshrined in FIFA statutes or for which there is no accountability outside of the FIFA world. No doubt, that’s just the way they like it.