Skorts-v-shorts row shows clear disregard for players' voice

Telegraph

17-05-2025

I assumed the victory would have meant other sports would follow suit, but the camogie saga shows how far we still have to go.
The issue is not that the camogie policy is skirted items – because that has a legitimate historical reason. It is a remnant of Victorian times, when women needed to prove femininity in the safety of skirts to be allowed to play sport.
No – the issue is that choice was asked for by the players and then ignored by the Camogie Association. Comfort is a performance margin. But what seems to matter to the rule-makers is only 'tradition'.
Tradition can be important, but if it is damaging or discriminatory, is it worth the nostalgia? The evolution of women's sports kit has moved from long dresses to skorts and I see no one reminiscing about the days of floor-length tennis dresses.
To disregard player comfort is to completely miss the point of sport. The concluding statement of my research points to the need for sports-kit policies to evolve so that they 'enable' participation, performance, enjoyment and belonging. Incidentally, this became the first principle of the Inclusive Sportswear Charter, which I built after the hockey campaign because it was evident the industry needed a north star.
The Inclusive Sportswear Charter is the first sports-kit-policy standard based on choice and inclusion. It is signed by England Hockey, the England and Wales Cricket Board, and England Netball. And last week, I publicly offered the Camogie Association to sign it, too, going live on Irish radio to propose this as their 'get-out-of-jail-free' card. A special congress will vote on the issue on Thursday and I hope, this time round, players' voices are heard. I hope soon that a pair of shorts can just be a pair of shorts.