Women’s leadership reached a historic milestone in 2016: German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Theresa May lead two of the world’s top economies. Elsewhere, Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, and Janet Yellen, chair of the board of governors of the US Federal Reserve, are in charge of major global financial institutions. This represents a significant shift in gender dynamics in the political and economic realms, even with Hillary Clinton falling short of becoming the first woman president of the United States.
While women have seats at the table where major economic and financial decisions are made, they have not yet reached the top leadership positions in sport. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and FIFA, soccer’s international governing body, widely regarded as the most prestigious and influential sport organizations, have never been led by a woman. Since the IOC’s inception in 1894, its president has been a man; FIFA has similarly had a man in charge since its establishment more than a century ago.
My latest research, based on the Sydney Scoreboard Global Index for Women in Sport Leadership, shows that women chaired only 7 percent (5 of 70) of international sport federations in 2016 (see table below). This is the same as in 2012, so no positive change has been achieved in the past four years. Women occupied 19 percent (12 of 64) of chief executive positions in 2016, up from 8 percent in 2012.
So men hold a staggering 93 percent of chair or president roles and 81 percent of chief executive positions. This means the key leadership positions in global sport governance and management remain largely elusive for women.
In addition, consider this: the majority of federations with a woman chair govern sports that have a relatively small participation base (for example, curling, sled-dog racing and underwater sports). Similarly, sports with a woman chief executive are mainly less popular, non-Olympic sports, such as air sports, climbing, waterskiing, and wakeboarding.
But the key finding of my research relates to women’s representation as directors of international federation boards. Currently, women hold 16.3 percent of directorships across the international governing sport bodies. Despite a slight increase of 4.2 percent since 2012, women remain markedly underrepresented. Gender balance in board composition—usually defined as between 40-60 percent of either gender—is still a long way off.
Even more significantly, only seven of the 70 sports bodies have achieved a critical mass of women directors. That is, a minimum of three women and 30% representation. These include the federations that govern triathlon, hockey, rowing and gymnastics.
One may wonder why critical mass is important. Do numbers matter?
According to critical mass theory, when the size of a group reaches a certain threshold or critical mass, that group gains trust and influence. The vast majority of international sporting bodies that have so far failed to achieve a critical mass of women include those that govern popular sports with millions of participants worldwide, such as soccer, athletics, swimming, cricket, rugby, tennis, and golf.
The consequences are serious. Not only do these sport organizations fail to adhere to democratic or ethical business practices because some stakeholders are underrepresented, it is also likely that this compromises their performance. Less diverse boards lack multiple perspectives that promote sound decision making, problem solving, and strategic planning.
Research in the public and corporate sectors has found that having just one or two women on a board does not substantially change gender dynamics—it does not admit women’s voices and ideas. Without a critical mass, one or two women on a (sports) board stand out, and can be fiercely scrutinized and stereotyped. They run the risk of being perceived as the “token” woman, the one fulfilling a target or quota, and as a result are not taken seriously.
[quote position="full" is_quote="true"]Men hold a staggering 93 percent of chair or president roles and 81 percent of chief executive positions.[/quote]
On the other hand, the seven sporting bodies that have achieved a critical mass of women are destined for superior performance. Women directors of these bodies are no longer perceived as tokens or as representatives for all women. They are seen as individuals with their own skills and perspectives. These women can also form alliances and challenge the dominant culture of the organisation.
Importantly, because these women are not primarily seen as a representative of their group, they are likely to contribute widely to any governing issue and not only to those seen as “women’s issues.” Studies have found that with a minimum of three on the board, women are more comfortable about speaking freely and participating in discussion of any issue. There is a shift in gender dynamics in so far as communication is “normalized”, meaning men listen more carefully and respect women’s opinions and ideas.
Having a critical mass of women bodes well for an organization’s performance, including the level of innovation.
The sooner sport governing bodies acknowledge the value of a critical mass of women on their boards and commit to achieving this, the better for sport worldwide.
Parents of young children get more time with them if they work from home.Photo credit: Canva
Juicy subject matter
Giphy from The Blacklist.
We could start a rumor.
Grieving couple comforting each other
This response to someone grieving a friend might be the best internet comment ever
When someone is hit with the sudden loss of a friend or loved one, words rarely feel like enough. Yet, more than a decade ago, a wise Redditor named GSnow shared thoughts so profound they still bring comfort to grieving hearts today.
Originally posted around 2011, the now-famous reply was rediscovered when Upvoted, an official Reddit publication, featured it again to remind everyone of its enduring truth. It began as a simple plea for help: “My friend just died. I don't know what to do.”
What followed was a piece of writing that many consider one of the internet’s best comments of all time. It remains shared across social media, grief forums, and personal messages to this day because its honesty and metaphor speak to the raw reality of loss and the slow, irregular path toward healing.
Below is GSnow’s full reply, unchanged, in all its gentle, wave-crashing beauty:
Why this advice still matters
Mental health professionals and grief counselors often describe bereavement in stages or phases, but GSnow’s “wave theory” gives an image more relatable for many. Rather than a linear process, grief surges and retreats—sometimes triggered by a song, a place, or a simple morning cup of coffee.
In recent years, this metaphor has found renewed relevance. Communities on Reddit, TikTok, and grief support groups frequently reshare it to help explain the unpredictable nature of mourning.
Many readers say this analogy helps them feel less alone, giving them permission to ride each wave of grief rather than fight it.
Finding comfort in shared wisdom
Since this comment first surfaced, countless people have posted their own stories underneath it, thanking GSnow and passing the words to others facing fresh heartbreak. It’s proof that sometimes, the internet can feel like a global support group—strangers linked by shared loss and hope.
For those searching for more support today, organizations like The Dougy Center, GriefShare, and local bereavement groups offer compassionate resources. If you or someone you know is struggling with intense grief, please reach out to mental health professionals who can help navigate these deep waters.
When grief comes crashing like the ocean, remember these words—and hang on. There is life between the waves.
This article originally appeared four years ago.