Despite Peter V’Landys and Andrew Abdo making the decision not to attend the Rugby League World Cup final to focus on finalising the collective bargaining agreement, there is still no agreed CBA.
Reports suggest that the ARLC and the Rugby League Players Association are getting close and that a new CBA is imminent.
But the CBA isn’t the only negotiation taking place right now. At the end of next season every club’s licence expires, and currently the club licensing agreements are also being negotiated.
It was revealed this week that one amendment being proposed to the club licensing agreement is the requirement for all NRL clubs to include at least one female on their boards.
This amendment has been called ‘historic’ by some publications.
In 2022 I find labelling such an amendment as ‘historic’ cringeworthy, particularly given some of the steps forward that corporate Australia has taken.
(Matthew Lewis/Getty Images)
Given the values that the NRL seeks to uphold it seems a very timid step to be mandating only one female board member for each NRL club.
Even more concerning is that some publications have suggested that the ARLC has concerns that clubs would push back against such a requirement.
Board directors have very specific legal obligations. One of the most fundamental obligations a director has is to act in the best interests of the company. When almost all of the research suggests that more diverse boards are more successful, I cannot fathom how pushing against diversity is in the interest of any rugby league club.
But which clubs could there possibly be concerns about?
A good starting point is to consider the NRL clubs that are currently without female representation on their boards. There are a couple, including the Sydney Roosters, Canterbury Bulldogs, Penrith Panthers and New Zealand Warriors. I was unable to find a list of the current directors of the Newcastle Knights.
I would be extremely concerned if any of these clubs were concerned about having greater diversity amongst their ranks, particularly when the research all points to the benefits of diversity.
At the other end of the scale, the Canberra Raiders are leaders in this space with three females currently on their board.
There are some that will say that their preference is for boards to be selected on merit – that the best people regardless of gender should be appointed to these roles based on their experience.
But this merit argument makes a couple of assumptions, the first being that every person on a rugby league board right now is the best person for that role based on their experience.
Have you ever been in a situation at work where someone receives a promotion for a reason other than ‘being the best person for the job’? Perhaps they had a good relationship with the boss, perhaps they were in the right place at the right time or perhaps there was some sort of other bias operating. The exact same situation can occur when it comes to sporting boards.
If rugby league wants to take a ‘historic position’, then I would encourage them to be bold and mandate 40 per cent female representation within the next five years. Now that’s something that could be called ‘historic’.
It is also something that could drive real change, as the research also demonstrates that change really occurs when two to three women sit on a board. At this point gender becomes largely irrelevant and the number of women leads to critical mass.
Anything less than 40 per cent feels absolutely tokenistic and, quite frankly, not particularly impactful.
While V’Landys has said that he wants to make the NRL the premier code for women in Australia, the NRL has gone backwards in the women in leadership space. This is despite really positive steps being made in almost every other area, including women in officiating, women who play rugby league and even women in the media.
Five years ago there were several visible and prominent women involved in rugby league, particularly at club land. Raelene Castle was the chief executive officer at the Canterbury Bulldogs, Marina Go was chair at the Wests Tigers, Rebecca Frizelle was chair at the Gold Coast Titans and Lynne Anderson was chair at the Bulldogs.
I am currently unaware of any female CEOs or chairs across the game, and it is to the game’s detriment.
Kent Dorfman
Roar Rookie
isn't hiring someone based on their sex illegal? i thought you hire the best person for the job regardless of sex, race, age, religion, sexual orientation, disability etc.
Tom G
Roar Rookie
You miss the point, i am far from arguing against female representation. I am however stating that examples shown aren’t the best and to suggest that it is to the detriment of the game that these individuals are no longer present, does little to support a reasonable argument. I have worked in an industry where senior women abound. Some are among the best I’ve worked with and for as either clients or direct managers. I also agree that some positive discrimination is necessary, I do however think it’s silly to support that argument with poor examples and pretend they were overachievers
mushi
Roar Guru
By the same notion there's been an abundance of useless male ones. Really those against fixing the system are those worried about losing the advantage of the existing bias. Dionysus is case in point, agitates to get a disabled person fired so his experience (not capability) is respected and the ingrained privilege roles on. Positive discrimination is legal and, regardless of what a few backward fans want, is now ingrained in governance standards globally. We will lag because that's what our game does but the 40/40/20 guideline is a basic benchmark for getting access to capital globally
Tom G
Roar Rookie
I’m not sure that the female CEOs you nominated support the argument that their absence is to the game’s detriment.
theHunter
Guest
It doesn't matter if one or more women are on the board, just as long as the sport keeps delivering every year is all that matters. What difference will this 'inclusion' do? You think fans will start flocking to a particular team because just one woman joined their board? Yes we complain about the things going wrong in HQ affecting a team going forward but it's not because of 'a man' or 'a woman' made the decision, it's because, HQ as a whole is not performing their duties properly and that's that. So, for me, if a woman is taken in, that's fine, that means she knows what to do. If none is taken, that's fine with me too coz the one already there (either man or woman) knows what to do as well. Mandating a woman just because of 'inclusion' is non-sensical. Bring one in if she suits the position and the ones already there aren't doing a good job. Just don't bring one in just because she is a "woman"
HR
Guest
Not every company director is a member of the AICD (I'm not, for example).
HR
Guest
It's definitely a bit counter-intuitive. But I'm playing by his rules. There are always hand picked appointees. There is no reason therefore why a mandatory female pick can't be one.
HR
Guest
But I've provided an entirely fictional definition of women. How can it possibly be confirmation bias?
HR
Guest
Except that nowhere in the act does it even hint that the "primary responsibility" is to act in the interest of their shareholders.
Big Daddy
Roar Rookie
Before the NRL commission starts mandating on who and what they want for NRL club boards they should start to review their own operations and that of state leagues . They have already tried that with NSWRL which finished up in court so if you run your eye over the current NRL board and see who adds some benefit . There are currently 2 ladies and one of those is a lawyer and the other an ex state political minister . The others apart from Wayne Pearce and Peter Beattie have business background but have been there a while and to be honest are just window dressing . Most business decisions should be made by the executive team and the rubber stamped by the board so when this commission was first established it was badly needed but seems to have regressed in recent years.
Nat
Roar Guru
That's a bit counter-intuitive. You can't say "no board..." even if that is your experience. Further, having political or corporate connections has a level of merit to further the boards ambition, especially if they have most other bases covered.
Ixnay on the Hombre
Guest
Absolutely correct usage . Confirmation bias Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes.
Mel Storm
Guest
I don't believe in mandates. I believe in merit. On that basis I would choose Mary over Darren Lockyer or Wayne Pearce every day of the week.
PeterCtheThird
Guest
Actually, 77, according to the Australian Institute of Company Directors, who you’d think would have a fair idea. Not “hundreds.”
Dionysus
Guest
Exactly. Its like that board in Parliament house in Canberra that lists all of the female members. No male list (not that there should have been one). When I asked someone about why they had that sex discriminatory sign on display it went clean over their heads. Kinda makes me worry about who is leading this country. I once went for a job with a local council that had a "Positive Recruitment Policy". I lost that appointment to someone less qualified than me who just happened to be disabled. I threatened to take that council to court and eventually someone smart realised what they had done and they offered me $5000 out of court settlement. Discrimination on any level is simply wrong!
Dionysus
Guest
WHY ? Board membership should be based on the best person for the job. We shouldn't give a rats about what gender they are.
Max
Roar Rookie
It’s not a timid step, it’s a deeply regressive and condescending step. Nothing is more sexist or patronising to women than mandatory placements. I certainly wouldn’t respect a women, or anyone else for that matter who got a board position in this way. Women should stand on their own two feet and be judged on their merit. This is terrible, short term thinking.
Womblat
Guest
Well said, Dumbo. :laughing:
Glory Bound
Roar Rookie
IMO positions shouldn't be awarded or withheld based on gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. It reeks of discrimination and prejudice. Neither should there be a set arbitrary limit based on these criteria as well. Positions should be based on experience, merit and performance. Nothing less, nothing more.
C. REID
Guest
Mary I wouldn't want my Mum, sister, daughter anywhere near this sport