On the heels of a compelling World Cup and on the eve of the 2012 Olympics, Women’s Professional Soccer announced today that they are suspending the 2012 season – with plans (maybe hopes?) to return to play in 2013.

The news, for those who recall the end of WUSA in 2003 and promises of revival (remember months of static websites?), raises concerning questions about why it’s so tough to launch and sustain a women’s pro league. And whether this move is a stab at regrouping — or a last gasp for a troubled structure.

Why the suspension? The official blame is the “lengthy and expensive legal battle with a former owner” – meaning the ongoing tussle with magicJack owner Dan Borislow, whose league membership was “terminated” in October following rule-breaking and public remarks critical of the league. He, in turn, filed suit. And – yes – both sides are now battling it out in court.

In a conference call with reporters this afternoon, WPS CEO Jennifer O’Sullivan suggested that the problem, however, was bigger than Borislow. The league, she said, “has been faced with a series of challenges and difficulties throughout the past year” adding that “Mr. Borislow has been a lightening rod for those issues.”

O’Sullivan said Borislow had hurt the league’s relations with major sponsors, suggesting he was a factor in Puma’s decision to drop its sponsorship and that his manner had “a negative impact on other national sponsors.”

But one has only to look at WPS history to see a revolving door of teams. Weeks after the Los Angeles Sol played in the league’s first championship in 2009, the franchise folded. The Atlanta Beat and Philadelphia Independence came aboard, but the St. Louis Athletica shut down – as did the FC Gold Pride – right after winning the 2010 WPS Championship. The Chicago Red Stars bowed out of 2011 – and the Western Flash signed on.  No wonder it’s hard to build a following. (Never mind about the “reorganization” six months after the league launch in 2009).

It IS difficult work in a nation dominated by men’s sports that attract huge crowds, coverage, and sponsorship. But women’s soccer is really, really good. And the World Cup (yet again) showed how edge-of-your seat compelling it could be  – if only packaged and marketed right. Right?

Borislow is clearly being painted as the bad guy. But you have to wonder: How could the league get to the point where one recalcitrant owner could sink the whole enterprise? And are we hearing the whole story? Borislow may not be diplomatic, but magicJack player/coach Abby Wambach recently defended him to ESPN’s Julie Foudy.  The issue is clearly deeper than the financial strain caused by lawyers, pricey as that may be.

Cancelling professional soccer at this moment – necessary as it looked to the league’s governing board – is risky. If Borislow puts together compelling “friendlies” with top players (as is rumored) and/or other teams like the Boston Breakers find alternative competition for 2012, will WPS really restart in 2013?

If it does, sponsors, owners, players and fans need serious reassurance that leadership has – finally – found the secret sauce to building women’s pro soccer.

SOMETIMES YOU LOSE – AND IT’S OK. The Women’s World Cup championship game between the U.S. and Japan honored the rise and intensity of women’s soccer. The back story was compelling: The U.S. Team’s dramatic run-up with Abby Wambach’s YouTube-play-it-again (and again) headers versus the determination of a team whose nation hungered for a win in the wake of the tsunami. The game was memorable for being both gritty and elegant. It reflected best things about sport: A game played hard and well – and fairly.

THERE ARE OTHER COLLEGE SPORTS BESIDES FOOTBALL AND MEN’S BASKETBALL: The sex abuse scandal at Penn State is just the latest and most troubling reminder of the power gap between big-time sports programs and other teams on campus. The power dynamic is further skewed by commercial quests of big-time teams that – as in the cast of conference realignments – change which other colleges a team will play. The Big East, for example, beginning this year will stretch from San Diego to Providence – and it’s not just football and basketball players getting on planes and missing classes. It’s field hockey players, cross-country runners facing six-hour flights to away games. Might college sports need a new structure – one that separates big-time sports-entertainment ventures from the extracurricular activities of student-athletes who fully intend to stay all four years and earn a degree?

GIRLS CAN DO WHAT BOYS CAN DO: We saw Justine Siegal become the first female to throw batting practice at MLB spring training. The Olympic Committee (finally) voted to add women’s ski jumping in the next Winter Olympics in 2014. We saw high school girls, including Monique Howard playing football – on the defensive line — and saw girls and boys in Massachusetts competing for swim titles. In New Jersey, a boy wasn’t allowed to play on a high school field hockey team, but a co-ed field hockey team in Princeton is growing and USA Field Hockey now wants boys to join the sport. Rigid gender divisions may still rule in sports, but common sense (and budget pressures) are changing the landscape and revealing that – gasp – males and females can compete with and against one another (or in the same events). We don’t, in other words, need to start with gender as a hard dividing line (most especially in school and recreational sports).

THE WOMEN’S MARATHON RECORD IS STILL 2:15:25. The IAAF’s decision to change the rules by which women runners can compete for world record times in the marathon – and the decision to revoke and then reinstate Paula Radcliffe’s 2003 London Marathon record – reveals challenges ahead. Women being paced by men can run faster. It reflects the maturation of the sport to require particular courses (only loops) and conditions (women’s race separate) for an official world record. It’s a quest for uniformity in a sport that takes place out in the natural world. But what about other factors? Rain? Temperature? Winds? Crowds? Seeking a standard may make sense for record books (though eliminating mixed-sex races narrows the acceptable pool and, in real time, sends a negative social message by exaggerating the gap in male and female performance). We are far from the days when running the distance was the simple point. But the pacing issue still lacks resolution. Men may still have rabbits, and it’s helped spur records. Women can’t have male rabbits, but they do need female ones.  We now need women who are able and willing.

I work – really hard – at avoiding gender stereotypes with kids so I decided to tick through what we had lined up for Christmas this year: there was the Wii for my son and an American Girl doll for my daughter. Err – I mean, a Wii for the family and an American Girl doll for my daughter.

So I caught myself, and to compensate for who might dominate the Wii, decided we should find a great game for my daughter. Knowing nothing about Nintendo, I suggested my husband order a girl’s sport game—you know, Girls’ Extreme Sports or WNBA or girls’ soccer.

As it turns out, they don’t exist. Check out Nintendo’s “Girls’ Games” section on this website to see their offerings: dance, cooking, fashion, cheerleading and princess, in sum. [I do realize you can make your person a girl athlete on the sports games, but the obvious message in the girl-genre of games is troubling].

I’m not sure why, but when my son was asked to bring in a wrapped book for a Pollyanna gift exchange (aka Secret Santa or Yankee Swap) with his class, we were instructed that books be marked “boy” or “girl.” My first reaction: why do they have to be one or the other? There are books both a boy and a girl would find appealing. What must we “gender-ize” everything?

Yes, I know, girls and boys are different. But as a former teacher and mother of boys and a girl, I see the balance girls and boys can gain from one another. As parents and as educators we should seek ways to bring boys and girls together and not focus on separating them at every opportunity.

So this holiday season, here’s the challenge: Avoid putting kids in a “gender-ized box” (excuse the pun). Think about gifts that you might not ordinarily buy for that girl or boy on your list. By sticking to gender-typical gifts, we reinforce gender stereotypes that are very outdated – and may even discourage the recipient from finding a new activity or toy that she or he would enjoy.

Here are a examples and suggestions for broadening your purchasing scope:

·         My daughter recently received a bracelet-making kit; it was a big hit with her AND her 7 year-old brother

·         Last year I bought my son AND daughter knight’s swords (foam, of course); accompany this gift with stories of King Arthur’s Round Table and/or the books Jane and the Dragon or Not One Damsel in Distress.

·         Buy sports equipment for girls (and don’t insist on pink!); think beyond the soccer ball—buy hockey sets (indoor and outdoor), lacrosse sticks, a skateboard, flag-football sets—even bowling or badminton equipment

·         Shop for kids’ jammies in the boys section, for both genders! Girls also love pirates, dinosaurs, trucks and sports. Don’t limit them to princesses and bunnies.

·         My two-year old son is very into dolls right now. It helps that he has an older sister, but he gravitates towards his favorite doll even when she is not around, making up names, telling me the baby is “silly” while cracking up, and comforting baby after he throws it on the ground (he also breastfeeds his baby!). All of this role-playing is wonderful for his development and will help him make a great dad someday.

·         All kids love dress-up; Any kind of dress up! Buy a super-hero costume for a girl, without limiting it to Wonder Woman (scantily-clad) or Cat Woman (beyond inappropriately-clad; who can work in those clothes?!). Girls as well as boys want to wear an apron in the kitchen and dress up as a fire fighter, doctor, pirate, or spy. (See www.sewplainjane.com for really unique capes and masks).

The international track federation’s (IAAF) decision to nullify women’s marathon records from mixed-sex events reflects a crude double standard: Men can have rabbits; women can’t.

The use of pacesetters is common in running, from short track distances to marathons. Boston and New York no longer allow pacesetters, but many marathons do, including Chicago, London, Berlin, and Rotterdam. (New York used to, paying rabbits several thousand dollars to set the pace and then drop out at the 25K mark).

By framing the matter as a gender problem — women’s marathon records can only count in women’s-only events — the IAAF conveniently sidesteps the more controversial issue: Should rabbits be allowed?

Competitive sport has long relied on athletic challengers meant to set a pace or spur improved performance. It is part of bicycle and car racing. While use of male practice squads in women’s college basketball spurred debate several years ago, the NCAA decided to allow them. (BTW colleges, including Ohio State are looking for a players).

Does the practice provide an unfair advantage? If so, are we ready to apply the same standard to men’s records achieved with the aid of pacesetters?

That would be a blow to many, including Roger Bannister who ran his historic sub-four-minute mile in 1955 — with the help of two pacers.

Until we have female rabbits (a thought) it’s easy for the IAAF – as it was for opponents of male practice squad players – to argue that women are relying on physically large and speedy males to improve their own performance.

But then, aren’t male runners using rabbits doing the same thing? And let’s remember: Paula Radcliffe really did run a 2:15:25 marathon (and in 2003 when she did it, no British runner, female or male, ran faster).

When my 6th grade son announced he was “following in the family tradition” and joined the school field hockey team, I was surprised. Turns out, he’s not alone, but is one of four boys on the team in a sport trying to grow it’s male following.

Last spring as part of USA Field Hockey’s developmental outreach, Cristopher Maloney, former player and umpire at high school, collegiate and national levels, started the Tiger Field Hockey Club in Princeton, NJ, to teach the game to girls and boys, aged 7-14. (He’s also the author of How to Umpire Field Hockey and is the editor for rules questions on the USA Field Hockey site.)

Even as Maloney puts girls and boys on the field together, the idea remains controversial — this fall a boy at Hillsborough High School was barred from playing on the school’s team.

Maloney, however, is determined to share the game, and many agree. In fact, parents with children in his once-a-week skill session, don’t understand the fuss. “I don’t see why there should be a problem as long as everyone follows the rules,” says Lori Fontana-South, whose daughters Shelby and Francesca both play. “My daughters aren’t afraid to play against boys.”

I spoke with Maloney about what male players mean to the sport in the U.S.

FGN:You have a coed program. What do you notice about girls and boys playing together?

CM: Firstly, there was no expression of, ‘That’s a girl’ or “That’s a boy.’ It wasn’t even on the radar. By the end of last season the only thing I noticed was that the guys learned a lot from the girls, because many of the girls were actually field hockey players [who played on school teams] and had played for a while. The boys got to copy the girls. The girls on the other hand, were playing against boys, and I think they left with more self-confidence because they had played against the boys.

FGN: Many people object to letting boys play on field hockey teams. Some worry boys will “overpower” the girl’s game. Do you see this?

CM: Are the boys so much better than the girls? Most of my experience with the boys and the girls is that the girls know what they are doing and the boy’s don’t have a clue. They don’t walk on and know how to play field hockey and take away positions. They are not that good. In fact, I know there are a lot of field hockey programs that go away because they don’t have enough players. All the arguments I’ve heard against it [letting boys and girls play together] don’t wash. “Oh the boys are bigger and stronger.” OK, but so is that girl over there – and that girl.

FGN: Others argue that it’s dangerous for males and female to play together…

CM: One of the brilliant things about field hockey is that players of all statures can be successful. The sport has a very unique set of rules that doesn’t allow for contact. If you make contact you are fouling. There is an awful lot that limits the contribution to the game that size and strength and speed might bring. Speed is an important variable, but you can be fast and not a very good dribbler. The overall point is that there are all these gender differences, but in the end, what are you evaluating? What does it matter if you can hit the ball 80 miles per hour but you can’t play?

FGN: You are working to create more opportunities for boys to play the sport. What obstacles do they encounter?

CM: People create all these subversive rules, like you have to wear a kilt. In fact, not everyone wears a kilt and a lot of teams have switched to shorts, but sometimes boys who want to play are made to wear a kilt. This is very prevalent and it’s disgusting. It’s an invention created to try to discriminate against one gender.

FGN: You recently discovered that a tournament you wanted to play in would not allow your players to participate.

CM: This fall, I have about 20 kids and I was hoping to play against other teams. I was starting to plan for us to participate in a tournament, but was told we were not allowed to come because we have boys. So I’m organizing a tournament here Nov. 12.

FGN: Where do you see the game headed?

CM: More and more boys are getting interested. USA Field Hockey is more aggressive about making more programs that are coed. Every sport in America that’s popular is popular with boys and girls – like soccer. I am all about field hockey. I am not about this gender field hockey, or that gender field hockey. But I know if field hockey is more popular with boys, it will be more popular with girls.

Tiger Field Hockey Club practice

Most parents have been there: Wanting your child to try or do something so badly, knowing that she or he would just love the activity, sport, or food that you just might do anything to get them to do it…even bribery.

Is bribery OK?

Recently, for example, a mom bribed her son to participate in the first day of swim team practice, promising he could play Wii afterwards, even though it wasn’t his “Wii day.”  Shall I share that this was “Mini-team?” That the boy was five?

He did swim – and clearly looked like he was enjoying himself. So, any harm done?

I spoke with Michael Kaplan, M.D., assistant clinical professor at the Yale Child Study Center, about the tricky matter of using bribery to get kids to play sports. In the case of the swim practice, Dr. Kaplan doesn’t see a big problem because sometimes children do need encouragement or a promised reward.

“Everyone celebrates an accomplishment with a reward,” notes Dr. Kaplan. Adults go out to dinner after a promotion, for example. “It’s a tangible marker of an internal feeling.”

But all bribery is not created equal. When is it “pushing” and discourages instead of enticing? According to Dr. Kaplan, if a child needs a bribe in order to participate in a sport, it’s fair to wonder if they are old enough for the activity. Yet, he says, some children need a nudge to try something new. There is a difference, he observes, between bribery as a motivator to help a child get past separation anxiety to try a new thing – and bribery as a vehicle for routine participation.

Ultimately, says Kaplan, parents should want “human interaction to be the best motivator.” In other words, the “reward” should be about the relationship between parent and child, that is, parents letting the child know they are pleased with a smile, a hug, and praise.

Bribing may seem like an effective tool at the moment, but it doesn’t establish a relationship of trust between parent and child. As a result, says Dr. Kaplan, for a child already uncomfortable in a situation, the bribe becomes part of the process with which they are not comfortable. Bribery in that setting, in other words, not only has “no lasting impact,” but says Dr. Kaplan, it robs the child of feeling good about their accomplishment and the resulting boost in self-confidence.

And yet, the moments are not always clear-cut. As children get older, issues around sports get trickier. We parents naturally scrutinize our children (noticing when they make mistakes, wanting them to be the star). Parents must tread a careful path and recognize when encouragement becomes pushing and when discussing becomes bribing. Both create a pressure situation in which a child is compelled because they want an extrinsic reward (say, a parent who offers a child money for scoring goals). This won’t feed a long term dedication.

Certainly, there are times children need some outside motivation to attend practice or play in a game – especially if the sport or coach is tough. This would look like: “Play hard, do your best and we will celebrate after the game.” Or, “after this hard practice, we can go home and relax and watch TV.”

So how to avoid (as best as you can) bribing your kids to play:

·         Know that kids raised with empathy rather than ridicule will be confident enough to try new things (See Dorothy Law Nolte’s Children Learn What They Live). Children’s innate comfort levels vary. They don’t want to participate in swimming lesson or track team the first day? Let them watch. Or think about who is doing the wanting—does your child want to play or do you want them to?

·         Children exposed to playing games in an UNSTRESSFUL, fun environment will learn the skills to be confident players at the competitive level. If “competitive” means stressful or emphasis on winning, your child may not to want to play.

·         Playing sports is not always easy. Don’t forget to VALIDATE your child’s feelings. Yes, it is hard to try new things or to play soccer in the rain The coach is mean? Recognize that the coach might not be the most effective but encourage your child to play anyhow. But also, LISTEN. If they really don’t like the tennis team or the coach, and they’ve always loved tennis or never had a problem with a coach before, maybe this is not the team/coach for your child. There is a difference between quitting and finding a better fit. Or a different sport.

·         Your child does not have to be on the “best” team or be “the best” on the team to have a successful sports experience. If sports aren’t fun, your child won’t want to stick with it. So let go of your goals for producing a professional athlete. Be honest enough to realize that if you are the one with the athletic goals, maybe it’s time to join at adult league — for you.

(More on Dr. Michael Kaplan here, here, and here.)

It’s happened again: In New Jersey, a boy wants to play high school field hockey — and people are up in arms.

Hillsborough High School senior Jimmy Cao, who’s 16, wants to be part of the team, but New Jersey’s governing body has barred him from playing. It’s not a surprising finding given that when such cases have been decided in court, judges have ruled that Title IX permits girls to play on boy’s teams, but not the reverse. Despite the Newark Star-Ledger editorial and concerns that boys will overrun and overpower a girl’s team, court rulings are not about “power,” but about ensuring opportunities for the underrepresented group, girls and women.

In many states, however, boys do play alongside girls on high school field hockey teams. According to the National Federation of State High School Associations, during 2009-2010 school year, 308 boys played on girl’s field hockey teams in Ohio (33), Massachusetts (36), California (123), Vermont (97), and Kentucky (19).

While many people seem to believe that the moment a male steps onto a field hockey field that his superhero-like strength will make the girls melt, reality is that field hockey remains a game of skill and finesse. Sure, hitting the ball well matters — but if you hit it too hard, your teammate can’t get it before it rolls out of bounds.

And in goal-scoring (I was a goalie in high school and college), the straight hard shots are among the easiest to anticipate and stop. It’s the unexpected flick or the rebound that is the killer. In other words, just because a player is male (and post-puberty could have greater muscle strength) doesn’t mean he is a superior player. In fact, such thinking is what reinforces gender stereotypes.

When we find ways for girls and boys of comparable skill levels to play together, everyone wins. High school field hockey seems a perfect venue to try. After all, when these players get to college, many club teams are — yes, gasp! – coed.

Newark Star-Ledger editorial writer Julie O’Conner interviewed me about the New Jersey controversy. Read the Q&A here.

If it’s late August, it must be Little League World Series time – and our annual reminder of why Title IX is needed, but not enough.

The disparities in treatment, support, and attention for male and female athletes begins early, and nowhere is it more obvious than in Little League.

Just consider the annual baseball and softball World Series playoff events. The Little League Softball World Series, which just wrapped up, featured 27 games, with semi-finals and the championship aired on ESPN2. That’s THREE games.

Now multiply that by 11 and you’ll have the number of Little League Baseball World Series games broadcast – and many on ESPN HD (for those keeping track, that’s every single game played in the series).

Oh, and the August 27 finals are on CBS in –– HD.

Nearly every element of these two marquis events reveals institutional and cultural sexism (yes, girls are allowed to play Little League Baseball but it is rare and in many places are discouraged from doing so). One has only to glance at the websites (here and here)  for the two World Series events to spot vastly different levels of support.

Curious about the players? The Little League Softball World Series site features team photos. The Little League Baseball World Series site lets you click down to individual players – and watch video of them in action. The level of information (want souvenir tickets?) and polish between the two sites is absurdly disparate.

This is not meant as a criticism of the softball effort (May we remember that these are 12-year-olds?), but of the blatant institutional gap. The matter is, frankly, puzzling. Why doesn’t Little League at least try – a little?

Granted, right there in the media guide, the organizational timeline points out that in 1972 after the passage of Title IX that, “Little League resists the entry of girls into the program.” In 1974, the organization decides “to allow participation by girls” (after a New Jersey Court ordered them to), but immediately creates Little League Softball – which helps to keep girls from joining baseball.

Many years have passed, but not enough has changed.

As the girls and boys of summer play out their Little League World Series dreams — dreams structured by an organization that portrays itself as a gift to youth development – isn’t it time to make gender fairness a goal?

It would be as important for the boys as it would be for the girls.

http://www.softballworldseries.com/schedule.htm

Back in April, a NYTimes/CBS News poll found that – surprise! – men and women place nearly identical value on sports opportunities for girls in high school.

Asked how important sports were for girls, 68% of men and 74% of women answered “very.” Asked about relative opportunities for girls and boys, 47% of both sexes felt girls and boys had the “same” opportunity and slightly more women — 49% vs. 45% of men – believed girls had “less” opportunity.

Both sexes, in other words, see pretty much eye to eye. They value girls’ access and recognize that it may be short of where it needs to be. If this is so, why does Title IX remain such a battlefield?

1. It’s hard to legislate cultural change. Title IX was meant to combat sexism that kept females from access to equal educational opportunities, from science classes to sports teams. The regulations, however, created a complicated web of compliance rules that require experts to interpret, keeping the average citizen from engaging around the issue of gender equity in sports. Combating unfairness has become the work of lawyers, with compliance being more about paperwork manipulation than ensuring fair play. It allows for institutional obfuscation and game-playing.
2. Title IX has become code for “Feminist Aggression.” Title IX has been portrayed as an extremist feminist weapon, a tool for taking away boy’s sports teams (rather than blaming huge football budgets), and forcing an “unnatural” level of support for female athletes. Lawsuits – by the National Women’s Law Center in November and recently by the American Sports Council – have become a form of gamesmanship (the American Sports Council claims it has a novel new legal claim never before used to battle the proportionality rule!). Instead of seeking fairness, we’re seeking wins.
3. The Persistent Myth that Women Don’t Really Like Sports as Much as Men (and they aren’t as good anyhow, so why provide the same support?) At every level, from recreational to professional, there’s belief that women are less interested and less deserving. The pervasive negative messages feed girls’ self-doubt at young ages, spurring self-censorship, and the inclination to take themselves out of contention or participation in a sport before they can face imagined rejection. It is not enough to “allow” girls to play – whether it’s Little League Baseball or soccer at recess – they must be encouraged. The result of this perceptual imbalance? The sense that “interested” boys are being denied by “uninterested” girls. This feeds a false narrative that fairness is being “forced” where it doesn’t belong.

Unfortunately, Title IX is a rough tool for the task of changing hearts, minds, and attitudes. The Women’s World Cup made a potent dent in the perception of women’s athletics as “less than.” Many males sports fans were stunned to find themselves interested and entertained by a women’s sporting event (gasp!!).

The law– and labyrinthine regulations – guarantee a protracted battle. If only common sense and fairness could actually rule. But that would require seeing female and male athletes as equals.

When the NCAA decided late in 2010 to cut squash from the emerging sport list, most people didn’t notice the decision, let alone realize the profound impact on the sport moving forward. But this decision is like hitting the serve out at nine-all in the fifth.

Some background: 14 years ago the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) created an emerging sport list with the goal of having the nine original sports one day become official sponsored NCAA sports. Squash was on that list. Emerging status (only applicable to women’s sports) is bestowed on sports which the NCAA thinks have promise. The status provides for a 10-year window to build teams with the goal of reaching at least 40 college programs, the minimum required to become an official NCAA sport. As an incentive while in emerging status, colleges can count the women who play on those teams toward meeting Title IX requirements.

What’s happened? Of the nine original sports on the list, four have become “championship” sports: rowing, ice hockey, water polo and bowling. In the case of women’s squash, after the 10-year window, the NCAA granted the sport four extra years to reach the critical mass of 40 teams. Right now we’re at about 28. So in 2010, the Committee on Women’s Athletics and the NCAA Division 1 Council decided to drop the sport.

Does NCAA sponsorship really matter? Yes. Here’s why this decision hurts women’s squash:

1) Colleges now have no incentive to add squash as a varsity sport. Before the 2010 decision, colleges could add women’s varsity squash in order to fulfill Title IX requirements. Now there is no incentive – all the more so because the sport is seen as stagnant and incapable of growth.

2) Branding. With squash enthusiasts pushing for inclusion of the sport in the Olympics, one must look at how to brand the sport into being a nationally-recognized powerhouse. The NCAA brings national recognition and visibility to every sport it sponsors. Some may argue that this is in name only, but we cannot discount the importance of NCAA sponsorship and inclusion.

3) Women’s squash is not growing at the same rate as the men. During my time in college (2006-2010), the men’s College Squash Association almost doubled in size to over 60 teams. Most people when they heard about the NCAA’s decision cited this. But the men’s growth, while encouraging, is irrelevant. You need 40 varsity teams on the women’s side. If we can’t get 40 colleges to sponsor women’s varsity squash, how do we expect to get women to fill the draws at the US Nationals, National Doubles and Howe Cup? Also, why are colleges adding men’s programs, and not women’s programs? (At both club and varsity levels). Something is clearly amiss here, and must be addressed.

4) Resources (and the pipeline). One current discussion among the women: Why aren’t more female players becoming coaches or going into the administrative side of squash, at collegiate, interscholastic and national levels? The NCAA holds workshops for college athletes, including specialized ones to encourage women to become coaches and administrators. The problem? Squash athletes are not included in these workshops, because we aren’t an NCAA sport.

5) Limiting geographic and socioeconomic range of squash athletes. With squash as a recognized NCAA sport, colleges like George Washington University added programs. Division I colleges give athletic scholarships. Division III and Ivy League institutions cannot. With more Division I schools like GW adding squash, scholarships can be a tool for bringing in more diverse group of players and broadening support for the sport. Without access to NCAA status – and scholarships – women’s squash will remain an elite, Northeast game even as the men’s game reaches new audiences and players.