Back a couple of weeks we puzzled over a report about women in sport and the gender pay gap there. The report was written by the sort of women who might end up as sports administrators if there were to be more women sports adminstrators. The recommendation was that there should be more women sports adminstrators. We did not think this exactly surprising, all too many of these reports are really "Gizza' Job" applications.
But we are surprised at the speed with which matters are moving:
The governing bodies of half of the UK’s most successful sports were on Monday night facing millions of pounds in cuts unless they move to ensure women make up at least 30 per cent of their boards by the end of the financial year.
Note that the insistence is not that womens' sport is treated equally, nor that similar amounts of money must be spent across the gender divide.
The demand is simply that more of the sort of women who sit on boards should be paid to sit on sports boards.
Sport England, the Government-appointed funding body which has invested almost half a billion pounds in grass-roots sport since London 2012, told The Telegraph it was ready to take punitive action if necessary.
Chief executive Jennie Price said: “I’m very confident that the relationship to funding is a real one, and that if people don’t comply with the code, that is going to be a very real risk.
“We need a real willingness and a really credible plan of action to do this. So, we accept that it can’t all be done in five minutes but it needs to be done as fast as we can do it and it needs to be properly and actively pursued and accepted as the right thing to do.”
Most remunerative for that certain type of woman no doubt.
We would rather wish that the sort of people who infest bureaucracies spend more time serving the consumers rather than attempting to get a well paid job infesting a bureaucracy. But then that they never do is why we want to reduce bureaucracy, isn't it?