Achieving gender equity: barriers and possibilities at board level in Swedish sport

ABSTRACT

Research questions

How is the ‘problem’ of gender equity described, perceived and experienced by female and male board members in Swedish sport today? What key dilemmas can be identified in the realisation of a gender equitable sport management?

Research methods

The article builds on research conducted on three Swedish ball sport federations during 2020–2021 and is based on a total number of 27 (12 males, 15 females) structured interviews with top leaders. The methodology employs Fraser’s concept of gender justice and the need to pay attention to cultural and economic dimensions in transformative interventions.

Results and Findings

Three dilemmas relating to the realisation of gender equity are analysed: between quotas and stigmatisation, overcoming gender equity as a side-project and how the democratic infrastructure of Swedish sport enables men’s continued dominance. The findings indicate that one-dimensional (affirmative) interventions dominate, which in turn explain why achieving gender equity in Swedish sport is difficult, i.e. cultural interventions only limit the chances of achieving gender equity.

Implications

To implement transformative interventions, cultural and economic resources need to be equally recognised and redistributed so that the organisations’ gender order is deconstructed and participation on equally recognised terms secured.

KEYWORDS:

• Gender equity
• hegemony
• redistribution
• organisations
• recognition

Introduction

Sports institutions are important upholders of the privileging of men and masculinities (Connell, 2005; Hovden & Pfister, 2006; Norman, 2010). Despite an increase in initiatives aimed at changing such organisational structures, Swedish sport still finds it difficult to eradicate patriarchal dominance and its reproduction of injustices, misrecognition and an uneven distribution of resources (Larsson & Linghede, 2020; Svender & Nordensky, 2019). Responding to this problem already in 1973, the Swedish Sports Confederation introduced its first programme to empower women and encourage female leadership (Larsson, 2001). However, since then the development can be described as a roller coaster, where periods of achievement (actions plans, earmarked resources for female sports, etc.) have alternated with periods of disaffection (continued misrecognition, lack of resources, etc.). Despite this stilted progression and Sweden’s repeated top-ranking in Global Gender Gap reports (meaning that it can be considered as one of the most gender equal countries globally), Swedish society and its sports movement are still regarded as ambivalent when it comes to gender equity and the conditions for female and male leadership and participation (Svender & Nordensky, 2017, 2018, 2019; World Economic Forum, 2020). In other words, in Sweden and beyond, several gender-related injustices still exist in both sport and the wider society (Jakubowska, 2015; Knoppers et al., 2021).

The main question to be examined in this article is how the ‘problem’ of gender equity is described, perceived and experienced by female and male board members in Swedish sport today. The aim is to understand why the realisation of gender equity is either slow or does not happen at all, and whether complexities of the problem can be identified so that gender equity can be achieved in the future. The research thus attends to Hedenborg and Norberg (2018, p. 141), who state that the ‘knowledge of leadership and gender in Swedish sport is limited’, and to Knoppers et al.’s (2021, p. 527) call that ‘[f]urther research is needed that explores the discourses surrounding resistance to gender balance’. Binding together the research conducted on three Swedish ball sport federations, where the main data is constituted by a total number of 27 (12 males, 15 females) structured interviews conducted during 2020–2021, the purpose of the article is to identify the barriers and possibilities for Swedish sports club boards to achieve gender justice.

Theoretical framing: gender justice through redistribution and recognition

Gender and power are relationally intertwined, interpersonal and structural processes that, in given situations, construct (social, cultural, economic and ethical) ideas or configurations about subjects, e.g. men/masculinities and women/femininities. Despite a certain stability, in each given situation there is always an opening for a renegotiation of the current gender order (Connell, 2005; Knoppers & Anthonissen, 2008). The gender order is permeated by cultural, financial and symbolic dimensions or powers that configure social subjects as stable, even though relations and structures are often (un)ambiguous, complex and sometimes contradictory. For example, women and men can be included in the same collective, although the inclusion may also entail excluding conditions. This makes working for change and gender justice difficult. As Knoppers and Anthonissen (2008, p. 101) state:

Although none of the practices excludes women entirely, each discourse has a gender subtext that creates or reinforces a culture that tends to exclude women as well as minorities and anyone who does not engage in these discourses or is not associated with them. Together they create powerful configurations that may be difficult to change. Strategies and policies that are designed to shatter the glass ceiling of managerial work that do not take into account this multiplicity of discourses and their contextualization may therefore be destined to fail.

The issue of gender injustice in sport is complicated and difficult to change, in that there is no neatly prepared practical, ethical or theoretical solution to it. According to Fraser (1995), the reason for this is that gender, as a power axis, cuts through (at least) two injustice-generating processes: culture and economy. For example, cultural injustice in sport is expressed in terms of contempt, while economic injustice can be expressed as the unequal distribution of resources (see e.g. Claringbould & Knoppers, 2007; Elling & Claringbould, 2005; Hovden, 2010; Jakubowska, 2015; Pfister, 2010). Management and institutional patterns of cultural norms and economic distribution contribute to or challenge the upholding of gender (in)justices. Connell (2005) and others argue that sports institutions are key upholders that privilege men/masculinities more broadly, and that therefore the management of sports organisations (associations, federations and institutions) is influential in changing the current gender order in sport and creating gender justice by a more equitable recognition and redistribution (Elling & Claringbould, 2005; Knoppers et al., 2021; Knoppers & Anthonissen, 2008).

Fraser (1995, 2000, 2007) maintains that escaping the ‘claws’ of injustice is a major challenge. Firstly, it requires an institutional settlement where hierarchical gender dichotomies are transformed and identities are understood as different, floating or ‘porous’ yet are still regarded as equal. The most radical consequence of this argument is that social categories, such as ‘woman/femininity’ or ‘men/masculinity’, will be deconstructed and disconnected from their traditional connotations. Secondly, for such deconstructions to be realised, it is necessary for individuals to detach from current ties to cultural constructions, interests and identities. Thirdly, this means that the existing injustice-generating structures need to be revised. That is, when the economic differences associated with men and women in sport are blurred, the cultural perceptions of these subjects will be deconstructed and become more porous and equal and vice versa.

What gender equity work is ultimately about is achieving democratic legitimacy financially and culturally. Fraser maintains that inclusion on its own is not a satisfactory criterion for achieving this. Participation should also take place on equal terms. This is created by means of a fair distribution of resources and a mutual recognition of equal status. The combination is key since, ‘ … feminist struggles for redistribution cannot succeed unless they are joined with struggles for cultural change aimed at revaluing … the feminine associations that code it. In short, no redistribution without recognition’ (Fraser, 2007, p. 33, emphasis in the original). Examples of economic injustice/inequality are exploitation (the surplus of one’s work goes to others), economic marginalisation (being forced to accept poor payment) and deprivation (being denied a satisfying living standard). Examples of cultural injustice/inequality are misrecognition (being made invisible through non-representation, communicative and/or other interpretive practices) and lack of respect (denigrating, despising and stereotyping in cultural representation and/or in everyday interactions). The cure for economic injustices includes the redistribution of resources and the transformation of economic structures. The cure for cultural injustices includes the revaluation of despised identities, degraded groups’ cultural products and the recognition and valuing of cultural diversity (cf. Fraser, 2007).

In sport, females can generally be understood as an exploited group and a despised collective (Elling & Claringbould, 2005; Jakubowska, 2015). Since women in this way form a bivalent collective in sport (by being exposed to cultural and economic injustices), the cure needs to combine recognition and redistribution. This double gaze exposes dilemmas that identify the inadequacy of a one-sided focus on cultural or economic interventions. According to Fraser, due to the lack of financial redistribution, organisations that only invest in gender quotas or the education of men/women will fail to change the current gender order and the underlying injustice-generating structures. A cultural cure might even be obstructed by economic redistribution i.e. when grants are given to a (marginalised) group the entitled group might regard the ‘exploiters’ as incapable (Fraser, 2000, 2007). The double-rootedness that Fraser points to helps to explain the stilted past of Swedish sport and why gender issues in this context are more difficult to solve or cure than injustices that are solely rooted in one dimension.

These points actualise a question about the creation of a ‘Fraserean’ sport. The answer involves a discussion about the degree of radicalism, which cannot be fully explained here. However, an important area concerns the separation of women and men into distinct competitions and rules – a division which, according to Fraser, is to be regarded as problematic. A radical consequence of deconstructing and disconnecting ‘woman/femininity’ or ‘men/masculinity’ from traditional connotations would, together with financial redistribution, make this separation irrelevant.

As gender is complex, the prevailing system of power is not unequivocally destructive. It is constructive in that it successfully creates and preserves cultural and economic resources; resources that in sport privilege certain men and masculinities (Connell, 2005). Normative and ethical standards make sports organisations navigate between gender justice-oriented and injustice-oriented distributions of cultural and financial resources (see the examples in Elling, Hovden, et al., 2018; Fullagar & Toohey, 2009; Hovden & Pfister, 2006) To achieve gender equity, such standards need to identify and dissolve the obstacles and explicit or implicit barriers in a board or an organisation. Concretising the economic and cultural dimensions of these issues and making redistribution and recognition central are key when managing organisations’ transformations towards gender equity (Fraser, 2007).

Previous research on gender equity and sport management

Organisations can, by governing, managing and other types of strategic organising, both enhance and hinder the processes of gender justice. One of the most widespread interventions has been to introduce gender quotas (see examples in Elling, Hovden, et al., 2018). Since 2011, every member organisation (i.e. each sports federation) of the Swedish Sports Confederation should strive towards an equal representation of the sexes at board level, with a minimum of 40% for the least represented sex (Svender & Nordensky, 2017). The quota method has been well discussed in research, where both beneficial and problematic consequences have been identified (Elling, Knoppers, et al., 2018). In a Danish context, Pfister (2010) shows how gender quotas can add to the perception of women as needing this intervention because they lack adequate competence. The quota could thus be perceived as the marginalised collective’s route to a board position, which in turn may devalue the skills, merits and reasons as to why they have been suggested by the election committee in the first place (see also Sotiriadou & de Haan, 2019).

The female underrepresentation in governing sports bodies has often been explained as a lack of their competence (Hovden et al., 2018; Skirstad, 2009). That is, women have been understood as ‘problematic’ subjects in need of educational or empowering initiatives. Although such initiatives aim to introduce gender mainstreaming into the management of sports organisations, these efforts tend to be added to the everyday management, rather than integrated into the everyday work (Knoppers et al., 2021). Research has shown that it is a struggle to make gender equity and justice issues part of the organisational culture if the organisation has been dominated by a homogeneous management and leadership for a long time (Sotiriadou & de Haan, 2019).

Focusing on gender equity policies, Shaw and Penney (2003) contend that the contents risk portraying women as victims and that such policies seem to be particularly unsuccessful when it comes to changes in practice. In this way, quotas and gender equity policies can instead lead justice work ‘backwards’, in that they are affirmative (one-dimensional or superficial) rather than transformative (or deconstructive) (cf. Fraser, 1995, 2007). Given the fact that women to a large extent have been a driving force in both these methods, Skirstad (2009) even believes that women have sometimes been their own worst enemies. Nuancing this point, Skirstad (2009) states that women may also be (too) sceptical or hesitant when opportunities for top-level positions arise and instead prefer ‘safer’ positions, paths or decisions.

While gender quotas may increase the number of women on boards, they do little to change the occupation of top leadership positions (Hovden et al., 2018; Piggott & Matthews, 2021), which demonstrates the problem of considering quotas as a successful ‘quick fix’. The method, per se, reproduces an overly narrow understanding of gender equity as a representation issue and does not lead to any transformative deconstructions of the gender order, which Fraser argues is necessary to achieve gender justice. Chair positions are influential and, hardly surprisingly, Claringbould and Knoppers (2007) found that most male chairpersons showed little interest in implementing gender equity interventions and measures. Somewhat symptomatically, one of the men in their study had experienced a situation in which a female candidate was chosen as the result of a gender equity policy but who, as it became apparent, lacked the necessary skills to do an effective job. Experiences like this reflect how quotas risk signalling that gender equity issues are primarily about representation, which shifts the focus from the cultural and economic (in)justices in an organisation.

Another factor that adds to the upholding of men’s power in sports organisations is the fact that male leadership and its associated styles are more likely to be considered unproblematic or normative (Hovden, 2010). In fact, how and by whom the eventual problem is formulated in an organisation is important per se. An organisational stability is often, although not necessarily, based on effective ways of silencing, reducing or incorporating critique, while at the same time upholding organisational structures or discourses (see, for example, Acker, 1990, 2006). In directing the research interest towards such upholding discourses, Hovden (2010) analyses dominant perceptions of leadership, power and gender and shows how men’s leadership is articulated in gender-neutral terms, while women’s leadership is gendered and includes a feminine prefix. For women, this could be both positive and problematic. At best it means that ‘women are expected to have equal opportunities’ and at worst ‘they are seen as a gender category’ where ‘men possess the power to define in which contexts and situations female gender should be conceptualized as a negative or as a positive difference’ (Hovden, 2010, p. 201).

Some sport management researchers have employed Fraser’s theoretical work. Using statistics from Dutch sport, Elling and Claringbould (2005) analysed the mechanisms of social inclusion and exclusion to show how access to economic and cultural resources can explain the differences in female and male sport participation. Focusing on governance in Polish sports federations, Jakubowska (2018) paid attention to Fraser’s political (i.e. normative or ethical) dimension and that the economic and cultural dimensions should be activated simultaneously. Almost a third of the 35 federations had no woman on the board; a skewness that was partly caused by their Catholic values and implicit assumptions that the place of females was in the home attending to ‘maternal duties’. This meant that males were the sporting authorities that dominated the economic and cultural resources. However, Jakubowska (2018, p. 66) also maintained that:

[…] women have a greater chance of equal participation in sports governance in sports that are recognised as “feminine” and seen as contradictory with traditional male values that are exemplified in team sports. These so-called feminine sports are marginalised in the economic dimension.

Like Fraser, Jakubowska (2018) interprets quotas as an affirmative cure for gender injustices without changing the underlying structure that generates them. Transformative cures are preferable, although more difficult to implement, and require a deconstruction of the dichotomisation of categories like ‘men’ and ‘women’. Hence, the purpose is not to dissolve all sex differences into one single universal identity, but rather to preserve a variety of de-binarised, fluid and ever-changing identities (Fraser, 1995, 2003).

Incorporating such a vision into sport management is a real challenge but necessary in order to change injustice-generating, underlying structures. This article is an attempt in that direction. As Piggott and Matthews (2021, p. 11) emphasise, ‘more scholarship is required globally across a diversity of organizations to explore the continued structural challenges facing organizations (…) and ultimately understand what is required to achieve transformative change in the gendered logic of sport leadership and governance’. This underlines the importance of research that highlights cultural and economic injustices in parallel and which points to the dilemmas that are created in interventions that only focus on one dimension.

Method and interview data

The data in this article consists of 27 (12 males, 15 females) structured interviews that lasted between 27 minutes and 1 hour and 13 minutes. All the interviews were conducted via mobile phone, apart from one in which a video call’s audio was recorded. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and anonymised. Departing from previous research and Fraser’s understanding of justice, gender and power, and using this as a sorting tool, the coding in NVIVO categorised the interview data into specific themes (or codes) that related to cultural and economic aspects of gender equity, power, challenges, problem descriptions, solutions, ideals etc. In the next methodological step, different dilemmas were identified; a process that also aimed to identify any underlying normative assumptions. Three of these dilemmas are presented in the results section and relate to quotas, recruitment challenges and the challenge of men’s traditional power.

Representatives from three Swedish Olympic ball-sport federations were chosen: one major federation and two smaller all Olympic sports. As is the case with several team ball sports, all the chosen sports can be considered as popular with greater financial resources for males. In the larger federation, men were in the majority (31–69%), while the smaller federations showed a more equal representation (50–50 and 46–54%) of men and women. The interviewees were, or had recently been, chairpersons of a national or regional sports federation board. Due to time-related issues, not all the 40 people who were asked to participate wanted to be interviewed. Questions about managing and leadership experience, views of gender equity and governance, power and necessary or preferred changes were asked. As the purpose was to collect individuals’ experiences and views of gender equity issues, the approach was similar to that used by Shaw and Penney (2003) and Claringbould and Knoppers (2007) in their studies. Due to this, and the fact that the interviewees referred to experiences beyond their current federation (some had been involved in several sports at various levels), the interviewees are treated as one group in the findings.

The average age of the interviewees was 56 years (born in 1964). The average age of the women was lower, while the men tended to be a few years older. The youngest interviewee was 33 and the oldest 70 years of age, with all but one having a sporting background. As high-level leaders and in governing positions, all the interviewees had a career in the sports movement. Such aspects could reduce the tendency to criticise the organisation. Knoppers and Anthonissen (2008) have shown that the interview situation per se has a potential to reshape heroic masculinity ideals where the interviewees relate to this (and to other discourses). In this way, the interview situation can include both a positioning and reproduction of conservative discourses (as well as challenge them). More specifically, the interview (with a researcher) could create a situation in which the interviewee wants to appear as conscious, well-informed and politically correct. These biases were important to consider when interpreting the interviews.

Results and discussion

The findings indicate that three dilemmas influence the realisation of a gender equal sport and a gender equitable board governance. Although these are presented separately, they are interconnected. A packaged solution for gender injustice is not delivered, although the results demonstrate how interventions tend to focus (one-dimensionally) on cultural aspects. However, as the two figures showing the two largest ball sport premier divisions (football and handball) demonstrate, economic resources are still being unequally distributed (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1. Distribution of financial resources in premier leagues in Swedish handball. Note. This figure demonstrates the distribution of resources in women’s and men’s premier leagues in handball in Sweden, season 2020/21, n = 206,989,000 SEK (Svensk Elithandboll Dam 2020/2021 &

Handbollsligan, 2020/2021, Key financial ratios [Ekonomiska nyckeltal].

Figure 2. Distribution of financial resources in women’s and men’s premier leagues in Swedish football. Note. This figure demonstrates the distribution between women’s and men’s premier leagues in Sweden, year 2020 n = 1,794,860,000 SEK (Gustafsson (2020) Financial analysis of the clubs in the Women’s Premier Football League in Sweden [Analys av OBOS Damallsvenska klubbarnas ekonomier 2020] and Sahlström (2020) Financial analysis of the clubs in the Men’s Premier Football League in Sweden [Analys av allsvenska klubbarnas ekonomier 2020].

The dilemmas that are outlined below form key conditioning factors that need to be managed and deconstructed. The identified dilemmas and the factors conditioning gender justice are important for any organisation beyond the Swedish sports context that aims to realise gender equity/justice.

Between quotas and stigmatisation

The dilemma of quotas has been discussed and analysed in previous research (see the examples in Elling, Hovden, et al., 2018; Hovden, 2010; Pfister, 2010; Sotiriadou & de Haan, 2019; Svender & Nordensky, 2017). This dilemma arises because the method only focuses on (cultural) representation where a ‘forced’ recognition (quota) risks leading to stigmatisation, while (unjust) economic distribution can continue (cf. Fraser, 1995). Equal representation is now compulsory in Swedish sport and the interviews indicate that quotas lead to a stigmatisation of the underrepresented group, or serve as a necessary evil that could ultimately lead to a just and equal sport in which people regard each other as equals beyond gender (cf. Shaw & Penney, 2003):

I’m not keen on quotas myself and hate it when someone says, ‘yes, you can join because we need to include a woman’. I hate it because I feel as though I want to join because they think I’m good. But if it hasn’t worked before then they perhaps have to do it like this. (Interview 1)

This interviewee reflected on the eventual meaning of femaleness and the quotation exemplifies the risk or trap that Hovden (2010) also points towards. Femaleness, as in the ‘other’ sex, always seems to carry an ambiguous and articulated content as an opportunity, obstacle or something that is (almost) impossible to disregard (cf. Jakubowska, 2015). As an affirmative method, the quota system has limited possibilities to achieve a gender order beyond this trap. At present, men constitute 76% of the chair positions in Swedish sports clubs (Petersson et al., 2016). Although quotas challenge men’s numerical dominance in the Swedish sports movement, the masculinity norms that permeate organisations and the underlying recruitment process remain, which was also identified by another interviewee:

You have to change the structure. Then I hear that, ‘yes but there are no women’, ‘there must be women from the clubs so that we can elect them’, they say. But it is not like that, we could continue for another forty years before anything happens. We need to find other ways of recruiting people. (Interview 5)

As a complement to quotas, organisations have initiated various educational courses; a method that again only focuses on the cultural dimension. Therefore, this ‘cure’ paves the way for new dilemmas.

Between a need for gender education programmes and overcoming gender equity as a side – project

Since I joined [name of organisation] they have always opened doors for me. But I can also look back to how it was at the beginning when I came onto the board. Back then, competition issues were important … Today, we have changed so that now education and development are in focus. The real sport was competition and the other aspects were just small fry. (Interview 11)

As the interviewed women had reached high positions in their organisations, their responses were somewhat biased. This is signalled in the quote above, i.e. that doors were opened for them. Several of the female interviewees also described that when they were elected to a board, (uncomfortable) expectations were placed on them to solve inequality issues, when in fact they were primarily interested in the sport, not in gender issues. As these women had not faced any gender injustice issues before and did not perceive the culture as problematic, they did not see themselves as change agents for increasing gender equity. This type of statement can also be interpreted as a strategy by a marginalised subject to avoid placing the responsibility for one’s marginalisation on oneself, and instead target the whole organisation as working for increased gender justice. Acker (2006) and Sotiriadou and de Haan (2019) have illustrated the organisational challenge of centring gender equity in a traditionally homogeneous management. Regarding this challenge, several interviewees pointed to the importance of education and the general need for an increased awareness in sport:

We have carried out an extensive training programme with the national executive committee, committees and district committees in order to find out more about this. Since then, for example, each part of the organisation has also had to formulate its own gender equity ambitions. We have also carried out educational initiatives where we have reflected more qualitatively in the committees on how we need to manage the issue of gender equity in our everyday work. We have set very clear quantitative goals in the constitution, governing documents and other guidelines regarding what the structure and staffing should look like. In recent years a lot of initiatives have been taken on these issues. (Interview 12)

Both the above quotations highlight that perceived cultural progress has been achieved in recent years. In order to promote gender equal representation, some committees have appointed co-chairpersons (one man and one woman). However, these changes must be considered as affirmative, since gender justice cannot be achieved by one-dimensional cultural interventions alone (cf. Fraser, 1995, 2003). In the interviewees’ words, this dilemma and these initiatives should be considered as ‘side projects’ (cf. Claringbould & Knoppers, 2007; Knoppers et al., 2021; Sotiriadou & de Haan, 2019):

Of course, several activities, projects, education programmes and so on have been carried out and I think this has been good for sport. What I can be critical about is that it [gender equity] still tends to be an issue that is dealt with in an individual forum. It’s never really part of all the decisions that are made, for example. … What we have talked about and what is certainly the most difficult is that we must find ways in the sports movement, in the boardrooms and in all contexts for structures that are also adapted to girls and women’s possibilities to participate. That it becomes really inclusive and for that you have to be very aware. (Interview 7)

I think that what is better now is that there is an acceptance. … This has definitely changed. I might have hoped for more changes in their way of working. How can more women be involved in board work? A person might have a job and perhaps could work digitally. Do we really have to have that many physical meetings? Can we work in a way is more accessible? Or that someone might be able to join for five months but not for the rest of the year, but we can count on them anyway. I think the way of working must change so that more people can participate. This applies to both men and women, but above all women. (Interview 15)

According to Fraser, to construct the organisational inclusiveness indicated in the above quotes, education programmes must be accompanied by financial interventions. What adds to the dilemma of educational initiatives in Sweden is that they are usually voluntary (only employed staff can be forced to take part) without any tests afterwards. The risk is thus that gender equity education is at best a supplement and at worst is not prioritised by voluntary board members. That is, the cultural, educational initiative does not create sufficient transformation to bring about a more comprehensive redistribution of financial resources (Fraser, 1995, 2003). The most obvious effect of omitting financial interventions is that a voluntary, unpaid yet status-loaded assignment is rarely prioritised. The non-profit sports club’s or federation’s ‘competition’ with the labour market, and how this conditions the possibility to become involved as a board member, was commented on by an interviewee as follows:

Over the years we [the ball organisation] have had several women on the board with business skills and knowledge. One was the CEO of a large company, who thought that working voluntarily was great fun. She did a wonderful job and secured, among other things, 100,000 SEK for a project from [name of funder]. She wrote the application herself and was active on the board. Then, all of a sudden, she was made a CEO in [a country in Central Europe]. ‘It’s not possible now’, she said, and disappeared with her skills. (Interview 23)

Jakubowska (2018) also explains that gender differences in sports organisations are caused by contextual, cultural settings. Competent people are attractive to other organisations, which leads to competition for the best suited – a recruitment contest that a voluntary organisation seldom wins. This illustrates how the achievement of gender equal representation in Swedish sports organisations is linked to and conditioned by economic and cultural factors outside sport. However, voluntarism is a central principle in the Swedish sports model (cf. Bergsgard & Norberg, 2010), which makes it possible for anyone to become a member and, at the organisation’s annual meeting, be elected to a board. The democratic infrastructure is thus transparent, although in turn creates a new dilemma.

Between voluntary stability and change within the conditions of associative democracy

When we came to the bigger club, which was still small by Swedish standards, it was very clear that the men would play. They were given more time on the pitch, more training sessions and so on before we were able to say anything. There were also differences in terms of resources, for example for equipment and clothing. It was there that I encountered my first [injustice] that ‘this is not okay’ and we were often angry. (Interview 11)

The younger women have paved the way by saying: ‘Well, it’s not okay to just have white middle-aged men on each and every damned board. It just isn’t.’ So instead of being a non-question, it is now a very real issue … Somehow, we just know that things need to be different. (Interview 1)

The democratic infrastructure of the Swedish sports model allows men to continue to be in the majority in, for example, chair positions, as long as they secure most of the votes at the annual meeting. On the other hand, this democratic system can also enable women to fill the same positions if a majority of members vote accordingly. The above quotes indicate that there is a threshold for resolving injustices as a newcomer in a (larger) club, and that both awareness (of a problem and solution) and the courage to act are necessary. As another interviewee touched on, this risked creating a Catch-22 situation: ‘If we generalise, the desire to be part of this power structure may be more attractive to men than women’ (Interview 7). That is, the dilemma, or ambiguity, is a matter of including a marginalised group in a community that could continue to marginalise them. How this marginalisation works is trickier to exemplify, but one interviewee explained that: ‘If I, as a younger woman sit next to a man who is 15 years older than me, people expect him to be the most important person in the room’ (Interview 3).

Although, the Swedish sports model’s democratic principles are explicit and transparent, the cultural norms that are linked to male power and influence are often subtle and more difficult to change (cf. Knoppers et al., 2021; Knoppers & Anthonissen, 2008). Difficulties of breaking the expectations of being silent or compliant is another example of this, which one interviewee described as: ‘It is very clear if you try to confront this. I might have to eat my words here, but this is anyway anonymous, but even so you know that you shouldn’t be uncomfortable’ (Interview 2). Regarding the difficulties of changing such barrier, the same interviewee continued by saying:

Why is it like this? Why is it not possible to get rid of this altogether? Why does it all the time have to be posed as a threat? Women’s sports and men’s sports are set against each other, as if you wanted to negate men’s sports, when what you actually want is something better for women’s sports. This to me is very perplexing. (Interview 2)

Men’s dominance can thus continue in the transparency of associative democracy; a domination that does not end with equal representation:

It has been observed that men group themselves in a certain way and in that I’m not a natural part. That applies to others as well. If you are at a conference and someone says, ‘Shall we go and have a sauna?’ I won’t hang out with eight men in a sauna. I won’t do that, which means that I’ll automatically be excluded from that particular conversation. (Interview 1)

Despite being a formal democracy, several cultural actions in Swedish sports can uphold male norms and patriarchal powers. Paraphrasing Fraser, the associative democracy and the Swedish sports model can be interpreted as an affirmative intervention that enables continued cultural injustice; an injustice that also affects economic injustice. This becomes especially clear in the largest federation’s grouping of gender-separate female and male elite interest organisations, with male and female elite clubs as members. This cultural divide has far-reaching economic consequences, as indicated in the following interview excerpt:

I really don’t understand that separation. It only makes it [reaching gender equity] even more difficult. What I find most difficult to understand is that [name of the male interest organisation] and [name of the female interest organisation] do not have the same resources or opportunities, [name of the female interest organisation] are losers from the start … I can think of several examples where we only increase the differences with this system … [name of the female interest organisation] cannot afford to hire people because it doesn’t have enough resources. As a result, at the bottom end the youngest girls receive fewer resources than boys. (Interview 21)

Symptomatically, a (male) interviewee viewed this separation differently and contended that a merger would reduce their potential:

Author: I’m thinking of the division between [names of the female and male interest organisations]. Would a merger be possible? What would the pros and cons of such an organisation be?

Yes, of course you can think about merging them. But I think it would actually reduce a lot of the commercial value. Therefore, I think that the division that exists in Sweden is quite smart … I think that [name of the female interest organisation] would have a much greater expansion potential if it is independent. It is also important to collaborate and help each other whenever possible, but I think that [name of the female interest organisation] would be a much stronger commercial partner in Swedish sports if it continued to develop its own activities. (Interview 26)

These contrasting opinions point to the challenge for women’s and men’s sports organisations to achieve equal economic and cultural conditions. According to Fraser, a cultural deconstruction and transformation of the prevailing gender inequalities are necessary, combined with financial redistribution. The need for this combination becomes evident in Velija et al.’s (2012) research, which shows that although a merger of two gender-separated cricket organisations increased women’s financial space, women lost culturally influential positions to men. Velija et al. (2012) conclude that mergers are a danger to gender equity in that they could be viewed as (financially) complete or as evidence of gender equity, even though they continued to (culturally) promote (male) exclusionary power.

To summarise, it can be said that the three studied ball organisations have so far been more active in initiating culturally oriented (affirmative) interventions in which the fundamental economic conditions have been left untouched. Given this maldistribution of initiatives, it is possible to criticise the three organisations’ understanding of gender equity as one-dimensional and culturally isolated. According to Fraser, such affirmative interventions have limited transformative force and will only lead to a superficial acceptance of inclusion. This type of implication is discussed below using Fraser’s conceptual apparatus and previous research.

From affirmative actions to transformative deconstructions: implications for a gender equal future of Swedish sport

Fraser argues that transformative solutions should combine equal economic redistribution with equal cultural recognition. To implement such interventions, organisations must also base their transformation on normative notions that answer the question of why the prevailing system of power should be opposed. The importance of normative notions in Fraser’s theory is also treated by Jakubowska (2018). These normative notions guide the organisation’s members in what is right and wrong and motivate certain actions (Fraser, 2003, p. 43, 2007). In other words, the answer to the why-question needs to convince those in the organisation that a fair and democratic distribution and recognition is important.

A first step must be to discuss whether there is a problem with gender inequality in the sport or the organisation or not. That is, for organisations to be able to formulate a normative answer to why transformative measures should be taken, the members need to agree on what the problem is in the existing gender order. The findings show that the interviewees, for example, perceived the ‘problem’ of separate elite interest organisations differently. One interviewee argued for a merger, while another thought that there was a greater potential with separate organisations. Changing this order, therefore, requires members’ legitimacy and trust but will not automatically cause a transformative deconstruction of the gender order.

None of the interviewees cited examples of interventions that combined cultural and economic change. This could explain the roller coaster-like development of gender equality in the Swedish sports movement over the past 30–40 years (Larsson & Linghede, 2020; Svender & Nordensky, 2019). If we are to follow Fraser’s theory, the problem with affirmative interventions, such as quotas or education, is that they may incorrectly signal that the problem of inequality is ‘solved’ when organisations achieve a 40–60 minimum representation (cf. Velija et al., 2012). As gender is connected to both cultural and economic factors, equal (cultural) representation alone cannot solve gender inequities – since the economic injustices risk continuing in the name of associative democracy and gender equality.

In line with Fraser’s radical thinking, there is nothing deconstructive or transformative about equal representation or quotas, since the methods do not challenge the notion of men and women as two collectives with different (economic) status. Therefore, Fraser argues that two cures are necessary for achieving transformation and gender justice, both of which are based on members being able to communicate and interact as social equals:

1. Participation on equal terms must presuppose that relations and attitudes are respectfully expressed and that all participants have an equal opportunity to achieve social respect. That is, gender equity is not only about representation and numbers – it also means being equals in communications and other actions.

2. The allocation of resources must guarantee the influence and independence of participants. This excludes all forms of economic inequality and excludes all social arrangements that institutionalise inequalities linked to financial resources.

The interviewees’ answers indicate that there is a potential to develop both these focus areas. For example, younger women can be respected and expected to be as influential and important as older men, and that financial distribution in the form of training times and equipment could be made more equal. The findings show how these cultural misrecognitions and economic maldistributions are reproduced (as in the two interest organisations and their different financial status), both at an individual and structural level. The positive side, if one believes in Fraser’s justice model, is that when members are willing to change towards a more radical democracy, no formal obstacles in the Swedish sports model will prevent them. While management and the sports’ cultural norms (and financial distribution) contribute to the upholding of the status quo through affirmative interventions, they are at the same time necessary for achieving equitable recognition and distribution (cf. Fraser, 2003). The current Swedish sport system thus has the potential to stabilise gender injustices and challenge them, where the realisation of (radical) transformative deconstructions is ultimately ‘only’ about mobilising the members’ majority and power. The challenge is to replace one democratic legitimacy with another.

The question is, which combination of interventions and cures will succeed in minimising or preferably eliminating the conflicts that arise when recognition and redistribution are combined? Following Fraser’s suggestions for a cure, a radical settlement could erase hierarchical gender dichotomies and transform the notion of the sexes to porous identities. This would require a revision or reckoning of the existing injustice-generating structures (Fraser, 2003, p. 206 and p. 209). Some of the interviewees touched on the need for such structural changes. What Fraser is concerned about is that an increased gender awareness and gender equity in a culture in which (some) men, women and others are aware of the inequalities and injustices might not necessarily lead to progression or transformation due to the lack of a financial equivalent. In other words, future research on gender equality and its management should focus on interventions that include cultural and economic change.

Conclusion

The purpose of the article has been to identify the barriers to and possibilities for achieving gender equality in the boards of Swedish sports associations. A particular focus has been placed on identifying the dilemmas and explaining and discussing them with the aid of Nancy Fraser’s conceptual apparatus. The reason why these dilemmas arise is that gender equity cuts through (at least) two power axes (culture and economy). In this way, the article has shown that insufficient affirmative interventions have dominated in Swedish sports; interventions that are characterised by a lack of ambition for cultural and economic change. A similar conclusion, but in a Polish context, has been made by Jakubowska (2018). In other words, in Swedish sport and beyond there is a continued potential to increase the cultural recognition and financial redistribution in more equitable ways. In addition, research on gender equity in sport needs to use these two analytical points (and their associated cures) to a greater extent in order to gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of gender equity interventions in sport.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the participating interviewees and project manager Annika Grälls for inspiring conversations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).