2025-2026 Women in College Coaching Report Card

The Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport released its annual 2025-2026 Women in College Coaching Report Card™ (WCCRC) in collaboration with WeCOACH.

After thirteen years of steady progress, the decline in the percentage of women head coaches documented in this year’s Women in College Coaching Report Card (WCCRC) warrants both analytical prudence and a watchful eye. While it is too early to determine if the decline is a long-term trend or a single-year anomaly, the stark gender disparities in coach turnover reasons (see p. 7) signal underlying biases are likely at play along with shifting cultural and sporting landscapes.

A Culture of Surveillance and Control: The national political rollback of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives and women’s reproductive rights creates a stressful cultural and workplace climate for some women. Pervasive scrutiny that targets a woman’s personal choices and professional voice likely forces some women to coach from a defensive posture of hyper-vigilance that can inevitably lead to burnout and attrition. More research is needed.

Below are several research-informed factors which illuminate how persistent gender bias, combined with systemic changes in intercollegiate athletics, may have driven this one-year downturn.

Biased Hiring in the New Era of Women’s Sports: The historic popularity of women’s sports  has  made  coaching  women’s  teams  highly  attractive  and  high  stakes. Consequently, when filling prized positions, athletic directors may be defaulting to traditional,  stereotypical  and  familiar  hiring  habits  that  favor  men—limiting opportunity for qualified women (Boucher & LaVoi, 2023, Kane & LaVoi, 2018; Wasend & LaVoi, 2018).

Leadership Double Standards: Due to gender bias, common competitive coaching practices—such as sideline outbursts, demanding public accountability, holding high expectations, using a firm tone, and delivering direct feedback—are often framed and scrutinized by the media, parents, athletes, and athletic administration as “toxic” or “abusive” when used by a woman but tolerated from male coaches without a second thought (Goorevich, Soltis & LaVoi, 2026; LaVoi, 2016; LaVoi et al., 2026; Norman, 2026).

The Compounded Toll on Women of Color: Women coaches of color are impacted by systemic interpersonal exploitation (Ofoebu, 2024) and face-to-face, interpersonal racial bias; they experience stereotypes, feel judged as less competent, and face daily microaggressions from colleagues, which directly lowers job satisfaction and drives their intention to quit (Goorevich, Soltis & LaVoi, 2026). Workplace gender and racial bias—specifically a dominant male culture and a systemic lack of professional acknowledgment—further destroys job satisfaction for women coaches of color, while institutional issues like pay inequality are often expected or obscured by workplace taboos (Goorevich, Soltis & LaVoi, 2026; Staurowsky et al., 2022).

The Shifting Landscape of Intercollegiate Athletics: The ongoing changes within college sports, driven by the transfer portal, Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) marketplaces, and the introduction of institutional revenue-sharing under the House v. NCAA settlement, are colliding to further solidify an unequal ecosystem that places distinct structural burdens on women’s programs (Springer, 2025), which disproportionately impacts women coaches. By neglecting gender equity frameworks, athletic administrators are funneling new financial resources almost exclusively into men’s sports (The Drake Group Education Fund, n.d.). Projections indicate football and men’s basketball will absorb a majority of new revenue-share dollars (83.9%, Opendorse, 2025) and 80% to 90% of the $20.5 million House settlement cap, leaving women’s and Olympic programs to survive on mere ‘micro percentages’ (Springer, 2025). Operating under tight financial constraints while facing similar roster pressures as men’s programs, women coaches navigate an increasingly precarious environment. When the instant mobility of the transfer portal intersects with student-athletes’ unconscious gender biases (Kuntz & Moorfield, 2024), routine coaching friction can influence some athletes to abruptly exit the program. Resource scarcity and severe roster instability creates an unsustainable workplace dynamic, likely contributing to the measurable drop in women’s coaching retention. More research is warranted.

Ultimately, the hyper-commercialization and new financial stratifications of modern college sports, when merged with entrenched gender bias and a masculine leadership culture, exposes women coaches to systemic marginalization and intense professional scrutiny (LaVoi et a., 2026; Kuntz & Moorfield, 2024; Springer, 2025). The institutional cost of leadership is loaded entirely onto the shoulders of women coaches who are left carrying the immense emotional, physical, psychological and occupational weight of a deeply broken system. Constantly scrutinized and overburdened by double standards, many women coaches find their authority diminished and resources depleted by the evolving demands of college athletics. This deep personal and systemic toll causes some to burn out and exit, while others are actively forced out of the coaching pipeline—ironically, just as women’s sports are thriving. Until athletic departments actively change the culture, back women coaches, value their expertise, and respect the right of women to lead, intercollegiate athletics will continue to lose invaluable role models and leadership. While this single-year drop requires a measured interpretation, it cannot be ignored. Moving forward, we will remain vigilant to see if this decline signals a lasting trend, continue to collaborate, confront systemic barriers, and help reinvigorate the momentum around elevating women in sports coaching.

Time and data will tell the story.

Previous Report Card Research