1 Introduction
In several European countries (e.g., France, Denmark, Germany), national and state governments are closely interwoven with sport governing bodies (Petry et al.
2004), as some political goals can be achieved through sport (Harris and Dowling
2020). Governments and sport governing bodies have several points of contact, such as the promotion of policy initiatives on inclusion or health, access to sport facilities, economic development, and successful performance at Olympic Games (Houlihan
2016). Furthermore, sport governing bodies receive financial support from governments, while sport organizations can influence public opinions about current political topics like discrimination or gender diversity (Barnhill et al.
2021).
Gender diversity in leadership positions is one element of good governance (Ferkins and Shilbury
2012), that has increased in importance in both politics and sport in recent years. Specifically, both sectors have attempted to gender diversify their leadership personnel (Choi
2011; International Olympic Committee [IOC]
2018a). However, both politics and sport fail to report levels of gender diversity which are close to an equal representation of men and women (each 50%) (Adriaanse
2016; Inter-Parliamentary Union [IPU]
2021).
Importantly, achieving high levels of board gender diversity is not only relevant from an ethical perspective (Adriaanse
2016), but also from an economic perspective (Joecks et al.
2013; Wicker and Kerwin
2020). A number of studies have identified beneficial organizational outcomes of board gender diversity for both corporate (e.g., Terjesen et al.
2009) and sport organizations (e.g., Lee and Cunningham
2019). For example, sport organizations with more gender diverse boards were found to generate higher per-capita revenues (Wicker and Kerwin
2020) and report fewer financial problems (Wicker and Kerwin
2020). Consequently, fostering gender diversity in the boardroom can have economic benefits for organizations.
To capitalize on the benefits of board gender diversity, it is important to understand the factors that shape the level of gender diversity in the boardroom of sport governing bodies. Given the various links between state politics and sport governance, previous studies examined the association between national governments and the governance of sport (e.g., Grix
2009; Hoye
2003). However, the relationship between governmental factors at the state level and the gender composition of sport governance has not yet been studied systematically.
The purpose of this study is to examine potential spillover effects from state government to sport governing bodies within the same state. Specifically, this research looks at the relationship between the gender composition of the parliament and among ministers and gender diversity in the boardroom of sport governing bodies using an institutional framework (Saeed et al.
2016; Terjesen et al.
2015). The research context is Germany which consists of 16 federal states. German sport governing bodies include national and state sport organizations encompassing both sport federations and sport associations.
1 These sport governing bodies have their headquarters in all German states. Given their location in a specific state, the gender composition of their board might be shaped by the regional political environment. This study advances the following main research question: How are state parliament and government composition in terms of gender and political party associated with board gender diversity in sport governing bodies? The research question is analyzed using a comprehensive dataset of national and state sport governing bodies in Germany.
The findings suggest that spillover effects occur especially from the party and gender composition of state parliaments and to a lesser extent from state government composition. The share of state parliamentarians from the Social Democrats and the Green party is positively associated with board gender diversity in sport governing bodies located in the same state. Additionally, the share of women parliamentarians from the Green and Left party is positively related to women in sport governance. Contrary, the share of Liberal parliamentarians and the share of women parliamentarians from the Social Democrats as well as the share of women Conservative ministers is negatively associated with women on sport boards. The study contributes to the literature examining the link between state politics and sport governance through an institutional perspective.
4 Results
Table
2 reports the descriptive statistics. Sport governing bodies have on average 20.1% women board members. The presentation of results focuses on the political factors as these are the variables of interest. In German state parliaments, Conservatives occupy 31.2% of all seats, followed by Social Democrats (25.2%), Greens (13.5%), Rights (12.3%), and Lefts (7.7%). The share of women among parliamentarians is 37.7% on average. The Green party has the highest share of women (47.0%), followed by Social Democrats (38.8%), the Left party (25.8%), the Liberal party (15.4%), and the Right party (10.0%). Among state ministers, 40.4% are women on average. Again, the Green party has the highest share of women ministers (32.3%), followed by the Social Democrats (29.2%). With 7.1%, the Left party has the lowest share of women ministers.
Table 2
Summary statistics
Dependent variables | | | | | |
%W board [0;100] | 930 | 20.07 | 16.83 | 0 | 100 |
%W board [0;1] | 930 | 0.20 | 0.16 | 0 | 1 |
Parliament | | | | | |
% Left parliament | 16 | 7.7 | 8.7 | 0 | 32.2 |
% Social parliament | 16 | 25.2 | 11.6 | 8.4 | 43.0 |
% Liberal parliament | 16 | 5.8 | 4.5 | 0 | 14.0 |
% Green parliament | 16 | 13.5 | 9.3 | 0 | 32.8 |
% Conservative parliament | 16 | 31.2 | 7.9 | 12.2 | 47.0 |
% Right parliament | 16 | 12.3 | 8.5 | 0 | 30.2 |
Parliament women | | | | | |
%W parliament | 16 | 30.7 | 4.9 | 21.8 | 43.0 |
%W Left parliament | 16 | 25.8 | 25.3 | 0 | 64.2 |
%W Social parliament | 16 | 38.8 | 12.0 | 10.5 | 52.9 |
%W Green parliament | 16 | 47.0 | 17.7 | 0 | 80.0 |
%W Liberal parliament | 16 | 15.4 | 12.6 | 0 | 40.0 |
%W Conservative parliament | 16 | 21.7 | 8.0 | 6.6 | 37.5 |
%W Right parliament | 16 | 10.0 | 8.0 | 0 | 26.0 |
Ministers | | | | | |
% Left ministers | 16 | 5.0 | 12.8 | 0 | 50.0 |
% Social ministers | 16 | 26.9 | 25.3 | 0 | 66.6 |
% Green ministers | 16 | 18.6 | 15.9 | 0 | 50.0 |
% Liberal ministers | 16 | 5.2 | 9.5 | 0 | 25.0 |
% Conservative ministers | 16 | 40.7 | 28.8 | 0 | 80.0 |
Ministers women | | | | | |
%W ministers | 16 | 40.4 | 10.6 | 25 | 66.6 |
%W Left ministers | 16 | 7.1 | 21.3 | 0 | 100 |
%W Social ministers | 16 | 29.2 | 26.2 | 0 | 66.6 |
%W Green ministers | 16 | 32.3 | 29.9 | 0 | 100 |
%W Conservative ministers | 16 | 23.1 | 17.3 | 0 | 50.0 |
Religious variables | | | | | |
% Catholic | 16 | 22.2 | 17 | 3.3 | 56.8 |
% Protestant | 16 | 25.0 | 9.3 | 11.9 | 44.6 |
Economic variables | | | | | |
%W state population | 16 | 50.6 | 0.1 | 50.3 | 51 |
%W labor force participation | 16 | 24.6 | 2.5 | 21.1 | 29.9 |
GDP per capita | 16 | 38.24 | 8.78 | 26.92 | 63.79 |
Gender wage gap | 16 | 5.7 | 0.9 | 3.7 | 8.0 |
Organizational variables | | | | | |
Memberships per capita | 930 | 0.97 | 3.96 | 0 | 36.70 |
%W memberships | 930 | 35.2 | 17.4 | 3.8 | 96.0 |
Board size | 930 | 9.22 | 4.85 | 2 | 50 |
State sport organization | 930 | 0.927 | 0.259 | 0 | 1 |
Tables
3,
4,
5 summarize the results of the regression analyses and display the average marginal effects (AME). Starting with Table
3, the baseline model (Model 1) shows that the share of women in the state parliament and among ministers are not significantly related to the share of women in sport governance.
Table 3
Baseline model for the share of women on sport boards
%W parliament | 0.131+ | 0.109+ | 0.007+ |
%W ministers | − 0.017 | − 0.017 | − 0.001 |
Religious variables | YES | YES | YES |
Economic variables | YES | YES | YES |
Organizational variables | YES | YES | YES |
n | 930 | 896 | 930 |
R2 | 0.210 | 0.212 | 0.035 |
F/χ2 | 47.05*** | 59.69*** | 508.87*** |
Table 4
Regression results for the share of women on sport boards: Political parties and women within these parties in the state parliament
% Left parliament | 0.081 | 0.095* | 0.000 | | | |
% Social parliament | 0.089** | 0.091*** | 0.001*** | | | |
% Green parliament | 0.068* | 0.064* | 0.001** | | | |
% Liberal parliament | − 0.180** | − 0.172** | − 0.001** | | | |
% Conservative parliament | − 0.020 | − 0.015 | − 0.000 | | | |
% Right parliament | 0.094+ | 0.077 | 0.001* | | | |
%W Left parliament | | | | 0.037** | 0.034** | 0.000*** |
%W Social parliament | | | | − 0.069*** | − 0.073*** | − 0.001** |
%W Green parliament | | | | 0.078** | 0.086** | 0.001** |
%W Liberal parliament | | | | − 0.054+ | − 0.059+ | − 0.001+ |
%W Conservative parliament | | | | 0.081+ | 0.080+ | 0.001+ |
%W Right parliament | | | | − 0.012 | − 0.025 | − 0.000 |
Religious variables | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
Economic variables | YESa | YESa | YESa | YESb | YESb | YESb |
Organizational variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
N | 930 | 896 | 930 | 930 | 896 | 930 |
R2 | 0.212 | 0.215 | 0.035 | 0.213 | 0.215 | 0.035 |
F/χ2 | 52.80*** | 113.41*** | 983.31*** | 79.94*** | 33.08*** | 1188.18*** |
Table 5
Regression results for the share of women on sport boards: Women state ministers
| AME | AME | AME |
%W Social ministers | 0.012 | 0.014+ | 0.000 |
%W Green ministers | 0.002 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
%W Conservative ministers | − 0.054** | − 0.064** | − 0.001*** |
Religious variables | NO | NO | NO |
Economic variables | YESa | YESa | YESa |
Organizational variables | YES | YES | YES |
n | 930 | 896 | 930 |
R2 | 0.212 | 0.215 | 0.035 |
F/χ2 | 99.09*** | 85.93*** | 1091.99*** |
Table
4 displays the models with political parties (Model 2) and women in the parliament (Model 3). In Model 2, the share of state parliamentarians from the Social Democrats and from the Green party are significantly and positively related to women in sport governance, while the share of Liberals has a significant negative association. These effects are significant in all three models, indicating they are robust. The positive associations between the share of Left (Model 2b) and Right parliamentarians (Model 2c) are only significant in one out of three models, meaning they are not robust.
Table
4 also summarizes the models including the share of women parliamentarians of each party (Model 3). They show that the shares of women parliamentarians from the Green and Left party are significantly and positively associated with the share of women on sport boards, while the share of women parliamentarians from the Social Democrats has a significant negative relationship. These effects are evident in all three models, suggesting they are robust.
Table
5 reports the models with women ministers (Model 4). They show a significant negative relationship between the share of Conservative women ministers and the share of women on sport boards. State women ministers from other parties are not significantly associated with women in sport governance.
5 Discussion
Using an institutional framework (e.g., Terjesen et al.
2015), this study examined potential spillover effects from state parliament and ministers by party and gender composition to board gender diversity in sport governance. With 20.1%, the share of women board members in sport governing bodies is only slightly higher than the global average of 1600 NSOs (19.7%) and the European average of 922 NSOs (18.8%; Adriaanse
2016). However, it is below the DOSB’s (
2020a) own women quota of 30%, indicating that the recommendation by the umbrella organization (DOSB) does not automatically trickle down to national and state governing bodies (Wicker and Kerwin
2020). The higher average shares for women state parliamentarians and women ministers can be explained by politicians’ needs to meet social requirements in order to get elected. Additionally, four out of six political parties most frequently represented in state parliaments have formal gender quotas and parity rules regarding their candidates for state parliamentary elections (Reiser
2014).
The empirical analysis indicates that the share of women in sport governance is shaped by the party and gender composition of state parliaments and governments. The findings for political institutions can be interpreted through the lens of social role theory (Chizema et al.
2015). In brief, this theory holds that the expectations of individual behavior are affected by individuals’ gender and associated norms and roles (Eagly and Crowley
1986). Women’s stereotypical role includes activities like helping and caring for e.g., family members (Eagly and Crowley
1986) and rather not political participation (Arceneaux
2001). Contrary, men stereotypically care for the family by participating in the labor market and are perceived as better leaders and problem-solvers (Eagly and Crowley
1986; Prime et al.
2008). These beliefs and stereotypes about the attributes of men and women and their expected roles in society differ between political parties and, hence, affect voters’ choices of a political party in state elections (Arceneaux
2001). In the corporate sector, political institutions were found to shape board gender diversity because the presence of women in politics can help to overcome traditional social roles of women and men and can motivate women to strive for leadership positions in work life (Chizema et al.
2015). The present findings suggest that the perception of gender roles might also spill over to sport governing bodies and voluntary leadership, respectively. The results are discussed by political party in the following.
The share of Left women parliamentarians is positively associated with gender diversity in sport governance (Model 2). The share of Left parliamentarians is typically higher in Eastern German states as the Left party has its roots in former Eastern Germany (Olsen
2018). Former Eastern German politics included gender diversity policies earlier in their program and encouraged women to participate in the labor market (Rosenfeld et al.
2004), while former Western German politicians advocated the social role of women as house workers and mothers (Rueschemeyer & Schissler,
1990). Thus, the Left party is characterized by fewer gender stereotypical roles and people living in states with a high share of Left women parliamentarians might adopt these beliefs in their own mindsets. The present findings indicate that the presence of women politicians of this party shapes state culture and beliefs about women’s social roles (Eagly and Crowley
1986), and that these beliefs about the roles of women spill over to sport boards in these states.
The share of seats in the state parliament held by Social Democrats is positively linked to gender diversity on sport boards, while the share of women parliamentarians has a negative relationship. Thus, the overall representation of the party in the parliament seems to be more relevant than the share of women parliamentarians. The first relationship can be explained by the Social Democrats generally conveying a social culture in which women have opportunities to achieve leadership positions and which advocates “equal and fair participation of women and men in reliable gainful employment” (SPD
2007, p. 23). The second finding might be a result of women parliamentarians of this party focusing on the chances of women in the labor market. However, the present study examines voluntary sport leadership and not paid labor, potentially explaining the evident negative spillover effects from women parliamentarians from the Social Democrats to women in sport governance. Hence, in states where these parliamentarians focus on promoting women in the labor market, their share is lower in the board of voluntary sport governing bodies located in this state.
The share of Green parliamentarians and the share of women Green parliamentarians are positively associated with the share of women in sport governance. The Green party had women leaders from their beginning (Wauters and Pilet
2015) and has the highest quota with at least 50% women on voting lists (Die Grünen
2022). The party was the first German party to implement such a gender quota in 1986 (Von Wahl
2006). Hence, the Green party considers women as leaders rather than supporting gender stereotypical role beliefs. The party promotes gender diversity in all aspects of living, with gender diversity being a fundamental component of the Greens’ political direction. Specifically, the party pursues the goal of a gender equal society, and considers feminism one way to achieve it (Die Grünen n.d.). In a political environment where the Green party is impactful in state parliaments and fosters gender diversity, the evidence shows that spillover effects occur to board gender diversity in sport organizations located in these states.
The share of Liberal state parliamentarians is negatively related to the share of women board members in sport governance. The Liberal party does not have a gender quota and does not consider a quota useful (Ahrens et al.
2020; FDP
2021). The Liberal party in Germany has a conservative tendency (Ennser
2012), leading to the endorsement of traditional social gender roles. This conservatism unfolds in cultural aspects (Close
2019) like gender diversity in leadership. Following the institutional framework, this political environment also shapes the situation of sport organizations. In particular, in states where the Liberal party occupies a high share of seats in the parliament, women are less represented in sport leadership, supporting the occurrence of negative spillover effects from state politics to gender diversity in sport governance.
For Conservatives, a positive association with the share of women in sport governance was only identified for women ministers and not for (women) parliamentarians. The Conservatives have traditional and stereotypical beliefs about the social roles of women, especially the role as a “round-the-clock-available mother” (Geissel
2013, p. 215). Even though Conservative women ministers made it to this leading position and the party includes gender diversity themes in their program (CDU
2019; CSU
2019), these women ministers might be perceived as being in an unusual leadership role. Moreover, despite their gender, they might still need to act in accordance with the traditional role orientation of their party. This aspect is especially important because they secured their positions not based on a democratic election like parliamentarians, but through appointment by the state’s prime minister. The findings suggest that these political circumstances might create a climate where women in leadership positions are considered less appropriate, implying that their presence negatively spills over to sport organizations located in these states and board gender diversity, respectively.
The representation of the Right party in state parliaments is not significantly associated with the share of women on sport boards in the respective states. Although there was one significant association in Model 3c, this finding is not considered robust and is, therefore, not discussed.
Overall, the results suggest that several spillover effects occur from state politics to gender diversity in sport governing bodies located in the respective state. Therefore, this study echoes previous research from the corporate sector (Chizema et al.
2015), indicating that parliament composition shapes board gender diversity in various sectors and that parties are important to achieve higher levels of gender diversity in organizations (Seierstad et al.
2017). The present findings suggest that spillover effects are driven by the party and gender composition of state parliaments rather than by ministerial positions.
6 Conclusion
This study investigated the relationship between state politics and gender diversity in sport governance drawing on an institutional framework (Terjesen et al.
2015). Using a comprehensive dataset of national and state sport governing bodies in Germany, the study provided evidence of spillover effects from the party and gender composition of state parliaments and governments to board gender diversity in sport. The findings suggest that the representation of political parties and women within these parties is more important than the mere representation of women in the state parliament and government. Collectively, the political climate of the state where sport governing bodies’ headquarters are located is associated with gender diversity in sport governance, indicating that the political environment and the perceived roles of women by political parties play a role. Thus, institutional state-level factors shape the gender composition of sport boards in Germany.
This study’s unique contribution to the literature lies in the examination of the role of the state political environment by employing an institutional perspective. Especially the differentiation between different political parties and the consideration of the share of women parliamentarians and ministers has provided new insights. Studying sport is important as sport governing bodies have mostly voluntary leaders, meaning that evidence from the corporate sector cannot be automatically transferred to the sport sector. Hence, the present research enhances our understanding of spillover effects from state politics to sport governance.
The findings of this study have implications for state politics and sport governance. The study reveals that sport organizations are shaped by their state political environment, specifically by the party and gender composition of the state parliament. Thus, state politics and political actors need to recognize that they shape the beliefs in a state and the social roles ascribed to women, ultimately affecting organizations in a state. Especially state parliaments and governments should be aware that their gender and party composition might have (unintended) consequences for non-political organizations such as sport governing bodies. This finding is important for sport governance as it suggests that the underrepresentation of women in sport leadership cannot only be changed by addressing issues at the organizational level. Hence, state politics do not only have direct effects on sport governing bodies (Bergsgard and Rommetvedt
2006), but also indirect and spillover effects, respectively.
This study has some limitations that can guide future research. First, the study is limited to the available political data at the state level. Only information about parliament and government composition by party and gender could be made available to capture state politics, while data on state government spending on sport or other areas were not available. Second, the data are only cross-sectional in nature, meaning that only associations can be examined. Future studies should collect longitudinal data and examine how changes in state parliaments and governments affect the gender composition of sport boards. Third, the institutional framework outlines the role of environmental institutional factors on organizations located in a specific environment. Future research should critically explore other environmental factors such as societal pressures that facilitate or hinder gender diversity in sport governance.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.