Sport is a microcosm of society, perpetuating many “isms” that impede it from attaining a level of consciousness that works toward a more inclusive sporting realm. The discourse surrounding sport generally focuses on competition, ability, and notoriety, rather than the sporting realm’s linkage to discrimination and inequity. However, these aspects cannot go unexamined or unchallenged, as they have tangible effects on the lives of athletes, spectators, administrators, and individuals at large. This chapter will illustrate the intersections of sport, gender, race, higher education, and effective gender equity practices. When employing a critical lens, the reinforced gender stereotypes, racial biases, and sexual‐identity inequities that are disseminated throughout society become apparent within the arena of sport and sport leadership (McDowell et al. 2009). Fink (2008) suggests that those who examine sport through a critical lens will understand that inequities are “situated in multi‐level, sometimes subtle, and usually taken‐for‐granted structures, policies, and behaviors embedded [in] sport organizations” (p. 147). Through historical and contemporary inquiries, scholarly discourse, and theoretical grounding, this chapter will identify and examine these embedded inequities. By doing so, the authors seek to promote a broader understanding of the intersections between gender, college sport, and (in)equity and to make recommendations for improving the practice of collegiate sport.

Before diving into these topics, it is important to situate this discussion within a particular context. Definitions of sport, gender, higher education, and equity vary across the globe, both individually and in connection to one another. The struggle faced by individuals who are not cisgender men who wish to participate in sporting is near universal, however. The Olympics, the largest international athletic competition, illustrates this well. The ancient Olympics, which existed for over 1000 years from the eighth century B.C.E. to the fourth century C.E., permitted only men to participate (Penn Museum n.d.). Despite a break of 1500 years, when the Olympics restarted in their modern form in 1896, women still were not allowed to enter. Baron Pierre de Coubertin, the individual credited with reviving the Olympics, believed sportswomen were “not cut out to sustain certain shocks” (United Nations 2007, p. 1). Thankfully, women were allowed entry to the following Olympics, in 1900, but they could only compete in five sports: tennis, sailing, croquet, equestrian, and golf (Olympics n.d.).

The twentieth century represented a slow slog for women to gain access to different sports, with new victories coming even in recent games: boxing (2012), ski jump (2014), and golf and rugby sevens (2016; Frantz 2017; Hart 2017; Shiekman 2012). Similar stories echo in the histories of most widespread athletic competitions. While bullfighting began as an athletic display in Spain in the eighth century (Frommer’s n.d.), the first documented woman bullfighter did not appear until 1937, when Conchita Cintrón of Chile began her career in Mexico (Frantz 2017). While golf was played as early as the tenth century in China and, in its current form, in the fifteenth century in Scotland (Athnet n.d.), the first women’s golf tournament in Scotland was not held until the nineteenth century (Frantz 2017). Further, Scotland banned women from competing in the Scottish Open golf championship for another 200 years, only permitting them entry in 2005 (United Nations 2007). The reasons for women’s exclusion from sporting vary, but most are rooted in physiological or religious claims. The latter played a large role in the delay of the first mixed‐sex marathon in Pakistan until 2005, with a previous attempt the same year being squelched by an armed guard (United Nations 2007).

While the type and degree of gender‐based exclusion in sports differs across the world – just as the conceptualizations of gender and sporting differ – the intersection of athletics and gender‐based discrimination is a common phenomenon even today. However, because of these varying definitions and the complexity inherent in the analysis of fluid definitions, this chapter will focus on sport within the context of the United States. The United States represents a large share of global, collegiate, and national participation in sporting. In addition, it has thousands of colleges and universities, second only to India, and a large and lucrative national system of collegiate athletics. Given these elements, the United States is a ripe environment for a closer analysis of equity within the intersections of sport, gender, and higher education.

A Brief History of College Sports

The Inception of Women and Intercollegiate Athletics

The idea of women participating in physical activity outside of delivering children seemed dangerous and absurd during the early twentieth century. The rationale of Dr. Edward Clarke (1874) that women should not partake in physical activity because “both muscular and brain labor must be reduced at the onset of menstruation” (p. 102) was a guiding argument used to exclude them from sport. The perpetuation of this idea delayed the intersection of women, sport, and higher education in an organized and governed system. Hence, it took nearly 100 years from Clarke's statement for the NCAA to begin governing women's collegiate sport in 1973.

There were other governing bodies, such as the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW), that took the lead in creating space for women and sport on a national level. The AIAW and NCAA battled to be women's sport governing body in the 1970s and 1980s. Bell (2008) notes the stark differences between the two, as the “AIAW focused on the female student‐athlete's education, not on athletic performance, and thus rejected the ‘win or die’ attitude of the NCAA” (p. 1). Though the AIAW had over 800 participating universities by 1981, it discontinued operation in 1982, and the NCAA took over sole governance of women's collegiate sport in that year. While the AIAW appeared to have the early stronghold on women's athletics, the passage of Title IX and the wealth and popularity of the NCAA led universities to want more national attention than the AIAW could provide.

Prevailing Ideologies: Patriarchy, Masculinity, and Racism

Collegiate sport was founded by and for white men and remains led by primarily white men to this day. This historical foundation has implications for its every facet. Patriarchy within any society is constructed to encapsulate and drive the power dynamics, access, and resources in support of men, leaving women to experience systemic oppression on the basis of gender. Hence, collegiate sport's grounding in patriarchy has manifested in systems, policies, and procedures that value men and devalue women: “Gender difference, and most important the valuation of one gender over another, forms the substance of the gender/economic/sport relationship” (Staurowsky 1995, p. 30). Research examining gender and sport demonstrates that patriarchal culture has influenced culture to believe men have more human capital than women within the field of athletics (Knoppers et al. 1989). Human capital speaks to the assumption that men are more equipped to hold higher positions within athletics because of the false premise of their being “more qualified” to both participate in and govern it. Thus, Burton (2015) claims that “any discussion of women's leadership experiences in sport must include positioning gender as a fundamental aspect of organizational and social processes” (p. 156).

Concomitant to patriarchy is collegiate sport's insistence on masculinity as its archetype for athletes. From the earliest Little League games to the earliest college hazing rituals, competition and dominance have been central factors (Friedman 2013; Thelin and Edwards n.d.). Since only boys were allowed to participate in sport of any kind, sporting became synonymous with boyhood, and physicality became synonymous with manhood. “Be a man,” “Man up,” and, “You play like a girl”: jeers in athletics made a clear distinction between good (man) and bad (girl). As sport grew in prominence in U.S. society, it contributed to an increase in the association of masculinity with physical strength and, often, violence – a notion that continues today. For evidence, consider the press conference before a boxing match, with its threats and posturing, or even a political debate, in which female politicians are questioned about their stamina while male politicians boast about their physical and sexual prowess.

Finally, racism is endemic to collegiate sport. From the well‐documented history of segregation in all aspects of college to the appropriation of indigenous symbols and heroes for mascots to the inane claims of Jimmy (The Greek) Snyder that Black people are better at sports because they were bred to be so, racism is foundational to and inextricably linked with collegiate sport. As later sections will demonstrate, this racism continues today in the representation of college athletes, coaches, and administrators and in the policies and procedures that guide collegiate sport.

Alternative Ideologies with Which to Consider Collegiate Sport

Gendered Inequity Challenges in Collegiate Sport

Representation in Leadership

Sport researcher Dr. Richard Lapchick produces the Race and Gender Report Card, which grades various U.S. professional sporting leagues and college athletics on their gender and racial representation among administrative positions and athletes. The report uses the national percentage of racial minorities and women to assess to what degree sporting institutions mirror these demographics. Dr. Lapchick is commonly revered as the “racial conscious of sport,” having produced the Race and Gender Report Card annually for over 10 years (Lapchick n.d.). He proclaims, “college sport [has] the lowest grade for racial hiring practices and gender hiring practices among all of the college and professional sports covered by the respective Racial and Gender Report Cards” (Lapchick n.d., p. 1).

Administrators

Examining collegiate sport administration is critical because those who hold these positions will either reinforce or challenge dominant narratives about identities and their relative value. It is of grave importance to examine who is spearheading athletic decision‐making, as failing to do so entices collegiate athletics to continue to operate under masculine hegemony as the simple and logical norm (Whisenant et al. 2002). Though women were given access to physically participate in the NCAA, the demise of the AIAW led to a demise of women leaders, meaning that women athletes joined the NCAA but women leaders did not. Before the adoption of Title IX, more than 90% of women's athletics programs were headed by women, but this percentage flipped; within a few years after Title IX, over 80% of athletic administrators were men (Acosta and Carpenter 1992; Yiamouyiannis 2003). Title IX had the unintended consequence of eliminating the head athletic director role for women's teams; even today, most athletic director positions are held by men (Acosta and Carpenter 2014).

Burton et al. (2009) use Eagly and Karau's (2002) role congruity theory to speculate as to why the disparity exists between men and women in college sport leadership. Social role theory suggests that there are expectations and believed behaviors associated with the roles men and women can hold within the workforce. Burton et al. (2009) found through surveys that men are perceived to be better equipped for positions that require “allocating resources, delegating, managing conflict, strategic decision making, and motivating and inspiring” (p. 423), roles that are key to the position of athletic director. Thus, women may be perceived to be less capable of holding such positions due to the stereotyping of social roles rather than any actual difference in ability (Kane 2001; Burton et al. 2009). When the dominant culture ascertains who is a “good fit” for athletic directorship, the development and cultivation of homogeneity, or the “old boys' network,” infiltrates itself into the narrative and culture of athletic departments (Bird 1996). This culture creates a cycle that renders those belonging to marginalized communities responsible for inserting themselves into a realm that appeases the “normative conceptions of White heterosexual men” (Knoppers and Anthonissen 2008, p. 100), in which they are, unsurprisingly, unlikely to be seen as a good fit. This disparity is evident in the percentage of senior athletic leadership positions held by women in collegiate sport (Figure 14.1).

It is evident that women are underrepresented in all top leadership roles in collegiate sport. Further, women reach a “glass ceiling” at the associate athletic director level, given the disparity that exists between their representation at this level and at the level of athletic director. Finally, women hold a larger percentage of senior athletic leadership positions in lower NCAA divisions. Given the preponderance of resources focused on Division I sports, this exacerbates gender differences in leadership.

Senior Woman Administrators

In recognition of the fact that women were being barred from obtaining the role of athletic director, the role of senior woman administrator (SWA) was established. The SWA is intended to encourage and promote the “involvement of female administrators in meaningful ways in the decision‐making process in intercollegiate athletics” (National Collegiate Athletic Association 2017, p. 3). The role was intended to create space for women in college athletics, as the merger of the AIAW and the NCAA brought access for women athletes but hindered the career aspirations of women within senior‐level administrative positions (Grappendorf and Lough 2006; Hoffman 2010). The merger enshrined men in the position of athletic director and led to women experiencing gender‐stereotypical notions, treating them as not “fit” to lead sporting organizations (Schneider et al. 2010; Burton et al. 2011). It is imperative to note the SWA is a role, not a position held within the athletic department. Hence, one cannot apply to become an SWA, it is a title assigned to a woman within a department. This structuring has led to role and responsibility confusion and has become a hindrance to the career advancement of women seeking to attain the position of athletic director (Copeland 2005; Pent et al. 2007; Hoffman 2010). A common misapprehension of the SWA role is that it is responsible for women’s sport (Claussen and Lehr 2002). This idea is influenced by various organizational macro‐level institutionalized practices, by meso‐level stereotypical notions of women as leaders, and by micro‐level human and social capital within organizations and the emotional difficulties of navigating male‐dominated spheres as women (Burton 2015).

The degree to which SWAs are given opportunities to engage with decision‐making processes is a recurring question within sport research examining women’s access and opportunities within collegiate sport (Sagas and Cunningham 2002; Lumpkin et al. 2014; Burton 2015). Both Grappendorf et al. (2008) and Claussen and Lehr (2002) affirm that women do not hold similar status in comparison to men when issues of external and financial resources are involved. Hence, the creation of the SWA position can be viewed either as a positive marker of success for women within collegiate sport administration or as one that promotes tokenism. As the role continues to grow and impact organizations, administrators must be cognizant of the impact it holds within all areas of the athletic department, not merely within gendered functions that suspend women as outsiders from financial decision‐making experiences – specifically, budgeting, media contracts, and salary considerations (Pent et al. 2007).

Black, Female Athletic Directors

At predominantly white institutions (PWIs), white men and women hold nearly 98% of athletic director positions, while at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), Black men hold nearly 75% of such positions (National Collegiate Athletic Association 2015). In the 2014–2015 academic year, only 21 Black women held the position of athletic director within the three divisions of college sport (McDowell and Carter‐Francique 2017). The intersecting dimensions of race and gender are key to understanding why this is the case. McDowell and Carter‐Francique (2017) bring attention to the difficulties Black women face in attaining athletic directorship at PWIs by noting intersecting oppressions, one participant stated, “… being stereotyped as aggressive was associated more with gender; being angry, with race” (pp. 403–404). The intertwining of racism and sexism contributes to the low likelihood of Black women ascending into leadership positions within collegiate sport (Nelson and Ratliffe 1999; Wicker 2008; McDowell and Carter‐Francique 2017). Burton (2015) articulates two types of discrimination women experience: access discrimination, which excludes certain groups, and treatment discrimination, which “occurs when individuals from certain groups receive fewer organizational resources than they would legitimately deserve” (p. 161). When white men continue to hire and promote mostly other white men, they create discriminatory loopholes that give way to access and treatment discrimination of women, people of color, and women of color (McDowell et al. 2009). This inequity cannot be understood through sexism or racism alone but comes into focus via an understanding of systemic intersecting discriminatory experiences impacting Black women and their progression and attainment of senior‐level positions within college sport.

Coaches

As with senior‐level leadership opportunities, the demise of the AIAW led to a precipitous decline in coaching opportunities for women. While women made up 90% of coaches in women's college athletics in 1972, they represented only 42.6% of coaches in 2010 (Kamphoff 2010, p. 360). Thorngren (1990) found that, in addition to leadership changes, “the devaluation of girls and women in sport, isolation, gender‐related bias, marital status and personal support system, and homophobia” (p. 361) contributed to women leaving coaching positions. Ladda (2015) found that the more respect women's athletics gained through Title IX implementation and societal acceptance, the more comfortable men felt entering the realm of women's sport. Hence, once women's athletics reached a specific level of prestige, rather than this benefitting women, it led to men valuing the arena and consequently seeking positions there, eroding opportunities for women coaches.

Also, patriarchy embedded within institutions of higher education and the NCAA led to male athletic directors hiring other men to manage teams, including women's teams. This practice can be understood through Kanter's (1977) homologous reproduction theory, which states that individuals who look similar to those in managerial roles are more likely to be given access to opportunity, power, and promotion. The effects of homologous reproduction can be seen in Figure 14.2, which shows the representation of women in coaching positions.

Again, it is evident that women are underrepresented in coaching roles, though less so than in administrative ones. Women surpass men, and barely, in only one category: Division III assistant coaches, the lowest division and a lower‐ranked position. It is important to unpack this statistic and question why this phenomenon exists. Do women simply prefer coaching within the Division III model, or does patriarchy allow the low risk of Division III to become the encapsulated space where female leadership and coaching is deemed appropriate and fitting?

Since the inception of the NCAA, men have continued to be overrepresented in contrast to women within collegiate coaching. Kamphoff (2010) investigated this discrepancy by researching the experiences of female former coaches. She derived five themes describing why women are not more inclined to pursue collegiate coaching and why they leave the field: (i) lack of adequate resources; (ii) compensation and duties; (iii) lack of administrative support; (iv) negotiations and gender hierarchy; and (v) women as caregiver. Bruening and Dixon (2008) and Moran‐Miller and Flores (2011) reflect similar themes. All three studies note sentiments of needing support from administration within the athletic department in order to maintain work–life balance (Lange 2008). However, Kamphoff (2010) also notes that women tend to be over‐ascribed to caregiver roles and treated differently than their male colleagues, as described by one participant:

When I resigned, I remember [the athletic director] telling me, “You know, I often wondered how you could juggle being a wife and having two kids.” When he said that to me, I'm like, that's in your head, that's what you're thinking every time you look at me. Are you kidding me? He wouldn't say that to a man. (p. 367)

This excerpt demonstrates the implications of Eagly and Karau's (2002) role congruity theory. The male athletic director referenced in the excerpt promoted social role ideologies by implying that holding the role of a head coach is not plausible as a married woman with two children. This excerpt poignantly portrays how patriarchy impacts the women within male‐dominated spaces, like athletics, and how social role ideologies can impact micro‐level interactions. Given these vast disparities between women and men in sport administrative roles coupled with beliefs and policies based on a normative, binary idea of gender, it is not surprising that there is a dearth of scholarship on sport administrators who are transgender, intersex, or non‐binary.

Financing

Entertainment economics, much more so than education, drive the priorities of athletic departments and the NCAA (Staurowsky 2003, p. 114). With this in mind, it is easy to see how, even with gender parity in representation among student‐athletes, gender inequity persists within financial expenditures in athletics. Monetary disbursement is an indication of value when examining any business model, so it is important to look at how collegiate sports disperse money.

Without question, the finances of collegiate sport favor men and men's teams. For instance, Andrew Zimbalist (2016) brought attention to the financial inequity that persists among men and women winning athletic contests during the notorious March Madness tournament:

Each game a team plays (not including the championship) earns the team's conference roughly $260 000 this year plus $260 000 each of the five following years. So, the total value of a victory in the men's tournament is approximately $1.56 million. By contrast, a win in the women's tournament brings a reward of exactly zero dollars. That's right, zero dollars. (para. 2)

This financial inequity for identical athletic contests between men and women is alarming. An argument could be made that men “earn” more money because more people watch men's basketball than women's. However, this may be because of the disparity in the television contracts associated with March Madness. According to the NCAA, “an eight‐year extension of its multimedia rights agreement with CBS Sports and Turner, a division of Time Warner, for the Division I Men's Basketball Championship” will continue until 2032. The contract states an “eight‐year period for a total rights fee of $8.8 billion … will be used to benefit college athletes through programs, services or direct distribution to member conferences and schools” (National Collegiate Athletic Association 2016, para. 4). But the checks are only being distributed to men's basketball teams. The Women's Basketball Championship is not included in the CBS deal. It is not difficult to imagine that “differential coverage creates strongly embedded, taken‐for‐granted notions that serve to limit women far beyond sport, producing a variety of economic, social, and political limitations that intensify the patriarchal power structure still so sharply entrenched in our culture” (Fink 2015, p. 332). Thus, a television contract that financially rewards victories for men and limits women to no financial reciprocation communicates to women the value of their athletic play. Kane (2013) and Cooky et al. (2013) found that media coverage of female athletes and women's sports has declined even though women's participation and performance have increased. Hence, more women are engaging in sport, but media coverage of women in sports has decreased over the past 20 years (Cooky et al. 2013). Such a phenomenon is due in part to the ways in which sport as a hegemonic male space is reproduced via media coverage and language, as the accomplishments of women are constantly compared to those of men (Kian et al. 2008).

Inequities are evident in every facet of spending for collegiate sports. Men's teams receive 70% of recruiting expense dollars among Division I FBS institutions (Figure 14.3). The distribution of operating expense dollars is better, but still far from parity (61% for men's teams, 39% for women's). Perhaps surprisingly, Divisions II and III show only slightly better ratios (see Table 14.1). Even when excluding football in Division I athletics, men's teams still receive a majority of the operating expenses.

Given that men lead these institutions and agencies, make up the majority of coaches and players, and receive most of the funding, it is clear that collegiate sport is heavily rooted in bias from top to bottom, center to margin.

	Men's teams		Women's teams
	U.S.$ (millions)	%	U.S.$ (millions)	%
Division I	119	61%	76	39%
(without football)	63	55%	52	45%
Division II	84	59%	59	41%
Division III	107	59%	74	41%

Data produced using the U.S Department of Education's Equity in Athletics Data Analysis software. The database includes athletic data submitted annually as required by the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (ADA).

Conclusion

The focus of this chapter is on bringing to light the inequities that persist against women and non‐men within an athletic system founded upon and perpetuated by patriarchy. These inequities are real experiences grounded in scholarly research. They may not speak to or illuminate every reality for women working within the intersection of higher education and sport. Via dialog and discussion surrounding women within sport, practitioners, scholars, and common readers can gain a broader understanding of women's experiences in collegiate athletics. It is important to note that the NCAA is working to correct the bias prominent within sport culture. In an effort to cultivate a unified voice against patriarchy, it founded Women Leaders in College Sport. This organization's purpose is to “champion women leaders,” and its vision is as follows:

Women Leaders in College Sports is the premier leadership organization that empowers, develops, assists, celebrates, affirms, involves, and honors women working in college sports and beyond. Women Leaders takes a pro‐active role in advancing women into positions of influence and powerfully shapes the landscape of women leaders.

(Women Leaders in Competitive Sports 2017, para. 1)

The creation of this organization is notable, and reaffirms the work being done toward achieving gender equity in collegiate sport. However, the present inequities will not be overturned without recognition of the pervasiveness of racism, sexism, and all intersecting forms of oppression. It is not enough to affirm women; colleges must condemn sexism. It is not enough to support student‐athletes of color; universities must stand (or kneel) against racism. Only by understanding the history and reality of collegiate sport can administrators and coaches truly make athletics a welcoming, inclusive, and prosperous endeavor.

References

1. Acosta, R.V. and Carpenter, L.J. (1992). As the years go by – coaching opportunities in the 1990s. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 63 (3): 36–41.
2. Acosta, R.V., and Carpenter, L.J. (2014). Woman in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal, national study. Thirty‐seven year update, 1977–2014. Available from http://www.acostacarpenter.org/2014%20Status%20of%20Women%20in%20Intercollegiate%20Sport%20‐37%20Year%20Update%20‐%201977‐2014%20.pdf (accessed January 28, 2020).
3. Athnet (n.d.). The roots and history of golf. Available from https://www.athleticscholarships.net/history‐of‐golf.htm (accessed January 28, 2020).
4. Beal, F.M. (2008). Double jeopardy: to be Black and female. Meridians 8 (2): 166–176.
5. Bell, R.C. (2008). A history of women in sport prior to Title IX. Available from https://thesportjournal.org/article/a‐history‐of‐women‐in‐sport‐prior‐to‐title‐ix/ (accessed January 28, 2020).
6. Bidwell, A. (2014). Feds target 55 colleges in sex assault investigation. U.S. News & World Report. Available from https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data‐mine/2014/05/01/55‐colleges‐under‐investigation‐for‐possible‐title‐ix‐sexual‐violence‐violations (accessed January 28, 2020).
7. Bird, S. (1996). Welcome to the men's club: homosociality and the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity. Gender and Society 10: 120–132.
8. Blackless, M., Charuvastra, A., Derryck, A. et al. (2000). How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis. American Journal of Human Biology 12 (2): 151–166.
9. Bruening, J. (2005). Gender and racial analysis in sport: are all the women White and all the Blacks men? Quest 57 (3): 330–349.
10. Bruening, J.E. and Dixon, M.A. (2008). Situating work‐family negotiations within a life course perspective: insights on the gendered experiences of NCAA Division I head coaching mothers. Sex Roles 58: 10–23.
11. Burton, L.J. (2015). Underrepresentation of women in sport leadership: a review of research. Sport Management Review 18 (2): 155–165.
12. Burton, L., Barr, C., Fink, J., and Bruening, J. (2009). “Think athletic director, think masculine?”: Examination of the gender typing of managerial subroles within athletic administration positions. Sex Roles 61: 416–426.
13. Burton, L., Grappendorf, H., and Henderson, A. (2011). Perceptions of gender in athletic administration: Utilizing role congruity to examine (potential) prejudice against women. Journal of Sport Management 25 (1): 36–45.
14. Buzuvis, E. (2013). Transsexual and intersex athletes. In: Sexual Minorities in Sports: Prejudice at Play (ed. M.L. Sartore‐Baldwin), 55–71. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
15. Carbado, D.W., Crenshaw, K.W., Mays, V.M. et al. (2013). Intersectionality: Mapping the movements of a theory. Du Bois Review 10 (2): 303–312.
16. Carter‐Francique, A.R. (2014). An ethic of care: Black female college athletes and development. Race in American Sports: Essays: 35–58.
17. Carter‐Francique, A.R. and Flowers, C.L. (2013). Intersections of race, ethnicity, and gender in sport. In: Gender Relations in Sport (ed. E.A. Roper), 73–93. Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
18. Carter‐Francique, A.R., Lawrence, S.M., and Eyanson, J.C. (2011). African American female athletes’ stories about race: A phenomenological exploration. Journal of Global Intelligence & Policy 4 (4): 215–228.
19. Claussen, C.L. and Lehr, C. (2002). Decision making authority of senior woman administrators. International Journal of Sport Management 3: 215–228.
20. Clarke, E. (1874). Sex in education; or, a fair chance for girls. Boston, MA: Osgoof and Company.
21. Collins, P.H. (1991). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge.
22. Collins, P.H. (1993). Black feminist thought in the matrix of domination. In: Social theory: The multicultural and classic readings (ed. C. Lemert), 615–625. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
23. Collins, P. (2015). Intersectionality's definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology 41: 1.
24. Cooky, C., Messner, M.A., and Hextrum, R.H. (2013). Women play sport, but not on TV: a longitudinal study of televised news media. Communication & Sport 1 (3): 203–230.
25. Cooper, J.N. and Newton, A. (in press). Black female college athletes’ sense of belonging at a historically Black college/university. Journal of Negro Education 1: 139–167.
26. Copeland, J. (2005). Association takes steps to improve understanding of “SWA.”. NCAA News 42 (17): A3–A4.
27. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1: 139–167.
28. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241.
29. Eagly, A.H. and Karau, S.J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice towards female leaders. Psychological Review 10 (3): 573–598.
30. Ferguson, T. (2015). “I can do more things”: how Black female student‐athletes contend with race, gender, and stereotypes. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
31. Fink, J. (2008). Gender and sex diversity in sport organizations: concluding comments. Sex Roles 58 (1): 146–147.
32. Fink, J.S. (2015). Female athletes, women's sport, and the sport media commercial complex: have we really “come a long way, baby”? Sport Management Review 18 (3): 331–342.
33. Francique, A. (2018). Is excellence inclusive? The benefits of fostering Black female college athlete's sense of belonging. Journal of Higher Education Athletics & Innovation 1 (3): 48–73.
34. Frantz, C. (2017). Timeline: Women in sports, part 1. Available from https://www.infoplease.com/spot/timeline‐women‐sports (accessed January 28, 2020).
35. Friedman, H.L. (2013). When did competitive sports take over American childhood? The Atlantic. Available from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/09/when‐did‐competitive‐sports‐take‐over‐american‐childhood/279868 (accessed January 28, 2020).
36. Fromer's (n.d.). Bullfights in Spain. Available from https://www.frommers.com/destinations/spain/bullfights (accessed January 28, 2020).
37. Gallagher, R. (2016). I'm a former college athlete who believes sports culture breeds rape culture. Bustle. Available from https://www.bustle.com/articles/165296‐im‐a‐former‐college‐athlete‐who‐believes‐sports‐culture‐breeds‐rape‐culture (accessed January 28, 2020).
38. Grappendorf, H. and Lough, N. (2006). An endangered species: Characteristics and perspectives from female NCAA division I athletic directors of both separate and merged athletic departments. Sport Management and Related Topics Journal 2 (2): 6–20.
39. Grappendorf, H., Pent, A., Burton, L., and Henderson, A. (2008). Gender role stereotyping: a qualitative analysis of senior women administrators' perceptions regarding financial decision making. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics 1: 26–45.
40. Griffin, P., and Carroll, H. (2011). NCAA Inclusion of transgender student‐athletes. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA. Available from https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Transgender_Handbook_2011_Final.pdf (accessed January 28, 2020).
41. Griggs, R.C., Kingston, W., Jozefowicz, R.F. et al. (1989). Effect of testosterone on muscle mass and muscle protein synthesis. Journal of Applied Physiology 66 (1): 498–503.
42. Hall, E. (2016). 174 LGBT athletes from power five conference schools have come out publicly. Available from https://www.outsports.com/2016/10/11/13244404/lgbt‐athletes‐gay‐college‐sports‐ncod (accessed January 28, 2020).
43. Harper, J. (2014). A brief history of intersex athletes in sport. Available from http://www.letsrun.com/news/2014/09/brief‐history‐intersex‐athletes‐sport (accessed January 28, 2020).
44. Hart, S. (February 11, 2017). Sochi Winter Olympics 2014: Carina Vogt wins women’s ski jumping gold. The Telegraph.
45. Hoffman, J. (2010). The dilemma of the senior woman administrator role in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics 3 (5): 53–75.
46. Hogshead‐Makar, N., and Sorensen, E.A. (2008). Pregnant and Parenting Student‐Athletes: Resources and Model Policies. Available from http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/PregnancyToolkit.pdf (accessed January 28, 2020).
47. hooks, b. (1992). Black Looks: Race and Representation. Toronto, ON: Between the Lines.
48. Kamphoff, C. (2010). Bargaining with patriarchy: former female coaches' experiences and their decision to leave collegiate coaching. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 81 (3): 360–372.
49. Kane, M.J. (2001). Leadership, sport, and gender. In: Women on Power: Leadership Redefined (eds. S.J. Freeman, S.C. Bourque and C.M. Shelton), 114–146. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
50. Kane, M.J. (2013). The better sportswomen get, the more the media ignore them. Communication & Sport 1 (3): 231–236.
51. Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York, NY: Basic.
52. Kardel, K.R. (2005). Effects of intense training during and after pregnancy in top‐level athletes. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports 15: 79–86.
53. Kian, E.T.M., Vincent, J., and Modello, M. (2008). Masculine hegemonic hoops: An analysis of media coverage of March Madness. Sociology of Sport Journal 25: 235–242.
54. Knoppers, A. and Anthonissen, A. (2008). Gendered managerial discourses in sport organizations: multiplicity and complexity. Sex Roles 58 (1–2): 93–103.
55. Knoppers, A., Meyer, B.B., Ewing, M., and Forrest, L. (1989). Gender and the salaries of coaches. Sociology of Sport Journal 6 (4): 348–361.
56. Ladda, S. (2015). Where are the female coaches? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 86 (4): 3–4.
57. Lange, C. (2008). A Matter of Balance: Work and Life in Intercollegiate Athletics. Available from https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/aMatterOfBalanceHandbook.pdf (accessed January 28, 2020).
58. Lapchick, R.E. (n.d.). The Racial and Gender Report Card. Available from https://www.tidesport.org/racial‐gender‐report‐card (accessed January 28, 2020).
59. Lev, A.I. (2004). Transgender Emergence: Therapeutic Guidelines for Working with Gender‐Variant People and their Families. New York, NY: Haworth Clinical Practice Press.
60. Lindo, J.M., Siminski, P.M., and Swensen, I.D. (2015). College party culture and sexual assault [Working Paper No. 21828]. National Bureau of Economic Research. Available from http://www.nber.org/papers/w21828 (accessed January 28, 2020).
61. Lumpkin, A., Dodd, R., and Mcpherson, L. (2014). Does a glass ceiling persist in intercollegiate athletics? Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education 8 (1): 33–46.
62. McDowell, J. and Carter‐Francique, A. (2017). An intersectional analysis of the workplace experiences of African American female athletic directors. Sex Roles 77 (5–6): 393–408.
63. McDowell, J., Cunningham, G.B., and Singer, J.N. (2009). The supply and demand side of occupational segregation: the case of an intercollegiate athletic department. Journal of African American Studies 13 (4): 431–454.
64. Moran‐Miller, K. and Flores, L. (2011). Where are the women in women's sports? Predictors of female athletes' interest in a coaching career. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 82 (1): 109–117.
65. National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education (2012). Title IX and athletics: proven benefits, unfounded objections. Available from https://www.ncwge.org/TitleIX40/Athletics.pdf (accessed January 28, 2020).
66. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2015). Sport sponsorship, participation and demographics search [Data file]. Available from http://web1.ncaa.org/rgdSearch/exec/main (accessed January 28, 2020).
67. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2015–2016). Sports sponsorship and participation research. Available from http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/sports‐sponsorship‐and‐participation‐research (accessed January 28, 2020).
68. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2016). Turner, CBS and the NCAA reach long‐term multimedia rights extension for NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championship. Available from http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media‐center/news/turner‐cbs‐and‐ncaa‐reach‐long‐term‐multimedia‐rights‐extension‐ncaa‐division‐i‐men‐s‐basketball (accessed January 28, 2020).
69. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2017). Senior woman administrators [Data file]. Available from http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/senior‐woman‐administrators (accessed January 28, 2020).
70. Nelson, A.D. and Ratliffe, T. (1999). Through the eyes of African American women coaches and athletic administrators at historically Black colleges and universities. Doctoral dissertation.
71. Office for Civil Rights (1972). Title IX and sex discrimination. Available from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html (accessed January 28, 2020).
72. Olympics (n.d.). Key dates in the history of women in the Olympic movement. Available from https://www.olympic.org/women‐in‐sport/background/key‐dates (accessed January 28, 2020).
73. Patterson, N. (2012). Feminist theory: women‐of‐color and multiracial perspectives. In: Encyclopedia of Gender in Media (ed. M. Kosut), 108–110. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
74. Penn Museum (n.d.). The Games. Available from https://www.penn.museum/sites/olympics/olympicorigins.shtml (accessed January 28, 2020).
75. Pent, A., Grappendorf, H., and Henderson, A. (2007). Do they want more?: An analysis of NCAA senior woman administrators' participation in financial decision making. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education 1 (2): 157–174.
76. Rankin, S. and Weber, G. (2014). Harassment and discrimination – LGBTQ student‐athletes. In: Mind, Body, and Sport: Understanding and Supporting Student‐Athlete Mental Wellness (ed. G.T. Brown), 78–83. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA.
77. Ravegno, L. (2007). Athletes often forced into heartbreaking decisions. ESPN. Available from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2865230 (accessed January 28, 2020).
78. Ridpath, B.D. (2016). The attitude toward sexual and athlete violence in college sports must change. Forbes. Available from https://www.forbes.com/sites/bdavidridpath/2016/09/15/the‐attitude‐toward‐sexual‐and‐athlete‐violence‐in‐college‐sports‐must‐change/#5f94cb075eaf (accessed January 28, 2020).
79. Russo, K. (2015). An athlete makes the case for gender not to matter in sports. Time Magazine. Available from http://time.com/4063096/how‐important‐is‐gender (accessed January 28, 2020).
80. Sagas, M. and Cunningham, G.B. (2002). Does having the right stuff matter? Gender differences in the determinants of career success among intercollegiate athletic administrators. Sex Roles 50 (5): 411–421.
81. Salvesen, K.A., Hem, E., and Sundgot‐Borgen, J. (2012). Fetal wellbeing may be compromised during strenuous exercise among pregnant elite athletes. British Journal of Sports Medicine 46: 279–283.
82. Schneider, R.C., Stier, W.F. Jr., Henry, T.J., and Wilding, G.E. (2010). Senior women administrators' perceptions of factors leading to discrimination of women in intercollegiate athletic departments. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics 3: 16–34.
83. Schwarz, F.D. (1999). 1874: one hundred and twenty‐five years ago. American Heritage 50 (3): 108.
84. Scott, D. (2017). Dismantling rape culture in college athletics. Inside Higher Ed. Available from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2017/06/09/male‐athletes‐need‐be‐educated‐about‐sexual‐assault‐essay (accessed January 28, 2020).
85. Shiekman, M. (August 12, 2012). 2016 Olympics: New events debuting in Rio. Bleacher Report.
86. Simien, E.M. (2004). Gender differences in attitudes toward black feminism among African Americans. Political Science Quarterly 119 (2): 315–338.
87. Smith, R.K. (2000). Brief history of the National Collegiate Athletic Association's role in regulating intercollegiate athletics. Marquette Sports Law Review 11 (1): 9–22.
88. Sorensen, E.A. (2009). Debunking the myth of pregnancy doping. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport 2: 269–285.
89. Staurowsky, E.J. (1995). Examining the roots of a gendered division of labor in intercollegiate athletics: insights into the gender equity debate. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 19 (1): 28–44.
90. Staurowsky, E.J. (2003). Title IX and college sport: the long painful path to compliance and reform. Marquette Sports Law Review 14: 95–121.
91. Steinfeldt, J.A., Reed, C., and Steinfeldt, M. (2010). Racial and athletic identity of African American football players at historically Black colleges and universities and predominantly White institutions. Journal of Black Psychology 36: 3–24.
92. Thelin, J.R., and Edwards, J.R. (n.d.). College athletics – history of athletics in U.S. colleges and universities. Available from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1846/College‐Athletics‐HISTORY‐ATHLETICS‐IN‐U‐S‐COLLEGES‐UNIVERSITIES.html (accessed January 28, 2020).
93. Thorngren, C.M. (1990). A time to reach out – keeping the female coach in coaching. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance 61 (3): 57–60.
94. Tuchman, G. (2001). Feminist theory. Encyclopedia of Sociology 2 (2): 988–997.
95. United Nations (2007). Women, Gender Equality and Sport. Available from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/public/Women%20and%20Sport.pdf (accessed January 28, 2020).
96. Vertinsky, P. and Captain, G. (1998). More myth than history: American culture and representations of the Black female's athletic ability. Journal of Sport History 25 (3): 532–561.
97. Wade, L. (2017). Rape on campus: athletes, status and the sexual assault crisis. Salon. Available from http://www.salon.com/2017/03/12/rape‐on‐campus‐athletes‐status‐and‐the‐sexual‐assault‐crisis_partner (accessed January 28, 2020).
98. Whisenant, W.A., Pedersen, P.M., and Obenour, B.L. (2002). Success and gender: determining the rate of advancement for intercollegiate athletic directors. Sex Roles 47: 485–491.
99. Wicker, I. (2008). African American women athletics administrators: pathway to leadership positions in the NCAA a qualitative analysis. Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
100. Withycombe, J.L. (2011). Intersecting selves: African American female athletes’ experiences of sport. Sociology of Sport Journal 28 (4): 478–493.
101. Women Leaders in Competitive Sports (2017). Our purpose. Available from https://www.womenleadersincollegesports.org/WL/about/our‐purpose/WL/About/our‐purpose.aspx?hkey=44fec3dc‐e1fe‐4825‐8645‐286560bb09a9 (accessed January 28, 2020).
102. Women's Sports Foundation (2011). Title IX legislative chronology. Available from https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/advocate/title‐ix‐issues/history‐title‐ix/history‐title‐ix (accessed January 28, 2020).
103. Women's Sports Foundation (2015). Pay inequity in athletics. Available from https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/research/article‐and‐report/equity‐issues/pay‐inequity (accessed January 28, 2020).
104. Yiamouyiannis, A. (2003). The future of Title IX: ensuring success through proactive approaches. Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal 12 (2): 45–55.
105. Zimbalist, A. (2016). The NCAA's women problem. The New York Times. Available from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/26/opinion/the‐ncaas‐women‐problem.html (accessed January 28, 2020).