Women Football's Silent Revolution: How Bespoke Gear and Systemic Equity Are Fighting the ACL Crisis in Their Game.
We provide an extensive overview of the historical and contemporary issues surrounding female athletes' equipment and injury risk, particularly in soccer. We discuss how traditionally male-centric equipment, such as cleats and general kits, were simply "shrunk and pinked" for women, leading to discomfort, poor performance, and an increased risk of serious injuries like ACL tears. There's several sources that emphasize the biomechanical differences in female anatomy, such as foot morphology and lower limb alignment, which necessitate gender-specific gear to enhance safety and performance. Furthermore, the episode analyze how systemic gender inequities in professional sports—including inadequate facilities, lower pay, poor playing surfaces like artificial turf, and a lack of customized strength training or medical support—compound the injury crisis and often prioritize profit over player welfare.
🎧 Listen now on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music and other streaming services! Don’t forget to subscribe, share, and leave a ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ review to help more players and coaches discover the power of Techne Futbol and Data Technology in the beautiful game.
#TechneAfricaFutbol #TechneFutbol #TrainWithTechne #Playermaker #TraceFutbol #Hudl #FootballTech #FootballInnovation #PlayerDevelopment #CoachTools #SmartFootballTraining #AfricanFootball #CAFOnline #FIFA #FIFAYouth #CAFDevelopment #YouthFootballAfrica #NextGenFootball #FootballScouting #TalentIdentification #DigitalScouting #EliteYouthDevelopment #FootballJourney #FootballAnalytics #FIFAForward #FutebolAfricano #TrainTrackCompete #FootballExcellence #FootballAfrica #TheFutureOfFootball
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
OK, get ready, because we were diving into something, well,
something huge today, a silent revolution that's been brewing
for decades. It really has.
We're talking about this fundamental realization that
for, gosh, how long half the world's athletes, female
athletes, were using gear that was just fundamentally flawed
(00:21):
for them. Flawed because the default, the
standard athlete it was always assumed to be male, wasn't.
It exactly. And that single assumption, it
wasn't just inconvenient, it actually compromised health,
safety and, yeah, performance for basically every female
player out there. It's kind of staggering when you
think about it like that. Generations of elite players.
Right. Operating with equipment, and we
(00:42):
mean everything from their sports bras, their shorts, right
down to their cleats, that was just, well, incompatible with
their bodies in motion. So our mission today we really
want to unpack here is this quiet revolution happening,
particularly in women's footballgear.
We want to pull apart the the science behind it, the cultural
shifts, looking at everything, jerseys, sports bras, those game
(01:04):
changing cleats. And crucially, connect all these
innovations back to that huge issue, player safety, especially
that ACL injury crisis we keep hearing about.
And the underlying systemic inequality, because it's all
linked, you know? Definitely, it's a big topic, so
we need to be systematic, right,Going skin out skin.
Out. I like that.
So first the kit, the apparel, then the footwear.
(01:27):
That's critical. And finally, we have to tackle
the bigger picture. The environment, the training,
the biases, all the stuff that even the best gear can't fix on
its own. Yeah, the whole ecosystem needs
to evolve, but thankfully those days of just scaling down men's
stuff, they seem to be ending. Let's dive in.
OK, so let's start right at the beginning.
You mentioned this shrink it andpink it era.
(01:50):
That phrase itself sounds so dismiss.
It it does, doesn't it? But honestly, it reflects the
reality. For a long time, there was so
little thought put into actual performance apparel for women.
It was just smaller versions of the men's stuff.
Literally, they're old kits. Often, yeah, it was a legacy
issue. Women's teams, especially early
on, often got the hand me downs from the men's side of the club
(02:12):
or organization. And even when brands started
making women's specific lines, the first step usually wasn't a
fundamental rethink. It was taking the existing male
pattern, scaling it down, maybe tweaking the cuts slightly.
Which completely misses the point, doesn't it?
Because it's not just about size.
Not at all. It fundamentally misunderstands
(02:34):
the differences. We're talking bio mechanics,
muscle distribution, even how women Thermo regulate
differently. It's complex.
There was a great quote, I think, from Cassie Looker at
Nike. She's the senior apparel product
manager in global football there.
She really nailed the differencein philosophy.
Oh yeah, Cassie Lookers insight was key.
It wasn't just about measurements, it was about how
the kit feels and what the athlete prioritizes.
(02:56):
What was the core difference? She pointed out.
She noted that extensive interviews showed men often
associate that tight, compressive fit with feeling
powerful. Like quote, like a superhero.
It emphasizes muscle, maybe feels aggressive, performance
ready. OK, makes sense.
But for the elite female playersthey talked to, the priorities
were different. Comfort was huge.
(03:17):
Feeling covered, secure, feelingprofessional.
They wanted 0 distractions from their gear. 0 distractions.
That's a powerful goal for apparel.
So comfort, coverage, professionalism, that's a
totally different starting pointfor a design compared to
superhero. Completely changes the brief,
doesn't it? It forces designers to think
about the experience of wearing the kit, not just the look or
(03:39):
the assumed performance benefitsof tightness.
So. If the old wave failed, what's
the new foundation? This bespoke kit revolution, How
does it actually start? It starts with the actual female
form. The new standard, which Nike and
now other leading brands are using, involves things like 3D
body scanning. Getting precise data.
Exactly. Scanning elite female
(04:00):
footballers from all over the world to build a detailed
anatomical map. They're building the kit design
from the ground up based on these real bodies, not just
adapting a male template. And that lets them factor in all
those complex things you mentioned.
Moisture, heat. The fabric needs to move with
the body. Precisely, It allows for a much
more sophisticated approach to functional factors.
(04:20):
How does the fabric manage sweat?
How does it keep the athlete cool or warm?
How does it stretch and recover during intense movement?
The old model just couldn't address these with the same
level of specificity. It makes sense that this level
of detail would affect even things we might not think about,
like the neckline I saw that mentioned seems minor, but I
(04:43):
guess not. It's a perfect example.
You wouldn't think the neckline is a performance issue, right?
But the research, the feedback from players showed it matters.
What was the issue? Nike found women overwhelmingly
preferred a crew neckline, not adeep V-neck, and the reason was
purely functional, very practical.
It's about getting the jersey onand off easily, especially over
(05:03):
long hair. Different hairstyles like buns
or ponytails. If you're struggling with your
kit before you even step on the pitch.
If it's pulling your hair or feels awkward.
That's a distraction. Back to the 0 distraction goal.
Exactly. It's a small friction point, but
removing it improves the whole experience.
It makes the gear feel seamless,professional.
I love that kind of detail. OK, so necklines are sorted, but
(05:25):
the real engineering challenge Iimagine is the lower body.
The shorts. Cassie Looker called it the
Goldilocks of shorts problem. Absolutely.
This is where the specific bio mechanics of female footballers
really come into play. They are, as Looker put it,
power generators, meaning meaning they often have
significantly more developed glutes, thighs and hamstrings
(05:48):
compared to maybe other female athletes or the general
population. These muscles are crucial for
sprinting, jumping, kicking power.
So the shorts need to accommodate that muscle map.
Right, but without being restrictive.
Think about the range of motion needed.
Deep squats, explosive sprints, sharp cuts, powerful jumps, the
fabric and cut have to allow forall of that.
(06:09):
So there's a balance too long and maybe they restrict that
deep end at the hip or knee. Could be or just feel
cumbersome, but too short. Then you run into that other
priority, feeling covered and professional discomfort feeling
exposed. That's another distraction.
Precisely, it's a tough needle to thread.
You need to design for maximum power output from those leg
(06:31):
muscles. Allow full dynamic movement but
ensure the athlete feels secure and isn't constantly adjusting
or thinking about their shorts mid game.
That really is the definition ofhigh performance gear, isn't it?
It just works. You don't even notice.
It when it's done right, yes. And this bespoke approach
focusing on the female athlete first has also allowed brands to
do something else really cool. Infuse the kits with meaning.
(06:56):
Moving beyond just function to storytelling, yeah.
We saw this especially around the recent major tournaments.
Kits stopped being generic sportswear and became like
canvases for national pride in history, specifically through
the lens of the women's game can.
You get some examples. Well, look at the Australian kit
for the last World Cup. It wasn't just an adaptation, it
was designed from scratch, specifically as a statement
(07:18):
piece for the Matilda's, the women's team.
Or think about the USA kit. It had design elements that
intentionally referenced the look and feel of the legendary
1999 World Cup winning teams jersey.
Oh, connecting to that history, That's powerful.
Hugely powerful. It gives the current players
that sense of legacy, of standing on the shoulders of
(07:38):
giants, you know? And some brands got really
creative with the details, didn't they?
Like Adidas with the Swedish kit.
Oh, the Swedish kit was fantastic.
Adidas went beyond just aesthetics inside the actual
numbers on the back of the shirts.
They integrated this collage. Tiny pictures of 57 different
Swedish female role models. Wow, woven right in.
(07:59):
Woven right in. So when a player pulls on that
jersey, they're literally carrying the inspiration, the
history of the women who paved the way in Swedish sport.
It's incredibly symbolic. That's amazing.
And England's kit? The Lionesses.
They seem to balance tradition with this new energy.
He did it really well. The home kit had to be white.
That's sacred in an English football tradition, right?
But they added these lovely personal touches, like having
(08:20):
the lionesses written on the inside collar.
A small nothing, but it fosters that inner pride, that team
identity. But the awake, it was something
else entirely. That red crush color?
Yeah, that was bold. Nike actually described it as
speaking to English counterculture, nodding to
designers like Vivian Westwood. It was meant to be aggressive,
confident, reflecting the attitude and success of that
(08:42):
team, not just a standard right away shirt.
So when you put all these piecestogether, the science driven
fit, getting rid of those littlefunctional annoyances like the
neckline, adding the cultural meaning, the emotional side for
the players must be huge. Oh, it's profound.
You have to remember, these are women at the absolute peak of
their sport. Global superstars.
(09:02):
Yet for years many were playing in gear that was fundamentally
not designed for them. Modified men's stuff, Scaled
down versions. That moment of getting the first
kit truly made for them. Cassie Looker described seeing a
player unbox that first bespoke kit.
The reaction wasn't just happiness, it was validation,
empowerment. It's that feeling of OK, finally
I'm seen, I'm respected. This game, this industry is
(09:25):
finally building things around me.
It's incredibly powerful. OK, so the outer layer, the kit
has seen a massive shift. Let's go deeper now, under the
jersey compression, wear base layers sports bras.
This seems like where the anatomical differences demand
even more precise engineering. Absolutely critical because this
functional wear the stuff right against the skin has an enormous
(09:48):
impact on comfort, performance, and even injury prevention, and
historically almost entirely developed with the male body and
mind. Right.
So female soccer players with their specific power generation
needs require really specializedcompression, don't they?
Especially lower body and core. Hugely.
The demands on their muscles areintense and the right
compression can help with stability of blood flow,
(10:10):
reducing muscle vibration, aiding recovery, but only if it
fits correctly. And the data shows their body
shapes are distinct, not just smaller versions of men, but
different proportions even compared to other women.
That's right, Research highlighted some key
differences. Female soccer players often tend
to have a smaller hip circumference relative to their
(10:30):
waist circumference compared to the general female population.
But, and this is crucial, they typically have a significantly
larger thigh circumference. Reflecting that muscle
development in the quads and hamstrings needed for the sport.
Exactly. So if you're compression tights
or shorts are based on average female proportions or worse male
proportions, they just won't fitright.
(10:52):
They won't provide targeted support where it's needed most,
around those powerful thigh muscles.
There was some specific data on the kind of precision needed.
Wasn't there something about targeting percentage reductions
in circumference? Yes, that came from a really
interesting study. They developed a prototype
compression uniform specificallyfor professional female players,
women in their 20's. The goal wasn't just general
(11:14):
tightness, it was targeted compression.
Well target. They aimed for specific
percentage reductions compared to the players relaxed body
measurements, roughly 81% for chest circumference, 95% for the
waist and this is the key 1A significant 78% reduction
targeted for the hip circumference.
Wow, 78% for the hip. So just to unpack that, that
means the garment was designed to compress the hips and upper
(11:37):
thigh area quite significantly. Precisely that indicates where
the design needed to provide themost support, reflecting the
density and functional importance of the musculature in
that region. For soccer players, it's about
stabilizing those key muscle groups during sprints, cuts and
kicks. Maximizing support, helping
recovery, maybe even reducing injury risk through better
stability. That's the goal, targeted
(11:58):
compression, not just squeezing everything equally.
OK. And we absolutely cannot talk
about undergarments without focusing on the sports bra.
That image of Chloe Kelly celebrating in hers after
scoring the winner the Euro 2022final, it became iconic.
It really did. It put the sports bra front and
center, didn't it? But its importance goes so far
(12:20):
beyond a celebration moment. It is arguably the single most
essential piece of kit for female athletes.
For comfort, obviously, but alsoperformance and health.
Absolutely. Poorly fitted sports bras aren't
just uncomfortable, they can cause real pain, impact posture,
breathing mechanics, even changegait.
And it's a shockingly common issue.
(12:40):
There is that statistic about breast movement during running.
Yeah, it's eye opening. Research estimated something
like 10,000 breast bounces during a 10 kilometer run.
Now imagine the forces involved over a full 90 minute football
match with sprints, jumps, changes of direction.
The need for proper support is undeniable.
Undeniable. And it's not just about
controlling bounds. Specialized design is also
(13:02):
needed for things like managing sweat underneath the breasts.
Yeah, which can cause really painful chafing and irritation
during intense activity. So again it comes back to fit
support and also material science.
Moisture wicking freezability. All nonnegotiable.
The goal is to eliminate pain and distraction.
Let the focus 100% on the game, not on discomfort from their
(13:23):
gear. OK, we've covered the revolution
from the skin out, bespoke kits,targeted compression, central
sports bras and huge wins for comfort, for performance.
But now we need to shift focus down to the feet because this is
where the conversation gets really serious.
Connecting directly to player safety, we're talking about the
cleat revolution and the ACL crisis.
This is without doubt the most critical medical issue facing
(13:45):
women's soccer right now. The numbers themselves are
stark, almost unbelievable. Women are anywhere from 4 to 8
times more likely than their male counterparts to suffer an
ACL tear. 4 to 8 times that's, that's terrifying.
And these aren't minor injuries.We see star players sidelined
for months, sometimes over a year.
Players like Kristen Press, Kayla Sharples, Tierney Davidson
(14:05):
and the NWSL, Their seasons, sometimes careers, are
drastically impacted. It's devastating, and for a long
time, the narrative around why this was happening focused
almost entirely on biology. Right, you'd hear about the Q
angle of the angle of the thigh bone or hormonal fluctuations
affecting ligament laxity. Blaming the female body,
essentially. Exactly.
(14:26):
It was framed as an inherent, unavoidable biological risk.
But with the latest research andthe gear revolution itself is
showing, is that a huge potentially preventable factor
was the equipment itself, specifically the footwear.
So the cleats they were wearing were contributing to the risk.
Overwhelmingly, the evidence points that way.
(14:46):
The fundamental problem, as experts like podiatrist Dr.
Carly Richards have emphasized, was this massive anatomical
mismatch. For decades, women were playing
in boots designed for men's feet.
Because the assumption was a woman's foot is just a smaller
man's foot. Pretty much, but it's not true.
Doctor Richards points out key consistent differences.
Generally speaking, women tend to have narrower heels relative
(15:09):
to their forefoot. They often have wider forefeet
overall. Yeah, and they tend to have
higher arches. OK, narrower heel, wider
forefoot, higher arch. How does wearing a boot designed
for the opposite, likely a widerheel, narrower forefoot, lower
arch cause problems? It starts with the last.
Remember the last? Yeah, the physical mold.
The shoe was built on the foundation.
Right. If that foundation doesn't match
(15:31):
your foot shape, you get instability.
The foot might slide around inside the boot, especially at
the heel. The arch isn't properly
supported. The wide forefoot might be
cramped in the toe box. And that instability, it doesn't
just stay in the foot, does it? No, it travels up the kinetic
chain. I'll fitting boots directly
contribute to things like ankle sprains and shin splints, but
(15:53):
critically they mess with pressure distribution under the
foot and affect your entire lower limb alignment.
Think pelvic tilt, how your tibia rotates.
It puts abnormal stress on the knee joint.
The foot is where you connect tothe ground.
If that connection point is unstable, the knee takes a
strain, especially during those quick changes of direction.
That's the mechanism that plant twist motion becomes much more
(16:15):
dangerous if the foot isn't properly secured and supported
by the boot. This is exactly why Doctor
Richards launched that POP pilotsurvey Protect Our Players in
2024. They needed hard data linking
the gear to the injuries. And they surveyed a good number
of players, right? Professional college, elite club
level. Yeah, 220 players in total and
(16:37):
the findings, they really hammered the point home.
Let's breakdown those numbers because this feels like the
smoking gun in the equipment debate.
What did the POP survey reveal? OK, first finding over 70% of
the players surveyed reported having sustained a lower
extremity injury, mostly ACL tears and ankle sprains.
The big ones. 70%, that's already high.
(16:57):
It is, but here's the crucial link to equipment.
Of those players who had been injured, a staggering 65%
reported that they were wearing football boots specifically
designed for men when the injuryoccurred. 65% of injured players
were in men's boots. OK, what about the uninjured
players? That's where the contrast
becomes undeniable. Among the players surveyed who
(17:19):
had not sustained such injuries,more than 70% reported wearing
women's specific. Boots.
Wow. So injured group mostly in men's
boots. Uninjured group mostly in
women's boots. The correlation is incredibly
strong. Exceptionally strong, it's
powerful evidence suggesting that simply wearing footwear
designed for the female foots anatomy is a major protective
factor against these devastatinginjuries.
(17:40):
But it's not just the shape of the boot the last is it?
The studs underneath play a hugerole too, especially in how the
foot interacts with the playing surface.
Absolutely critical. Many ACL tears happen during
those rapid pivot or sidestep cutting motions if the studs on
the bottom of the boot are too long or if they have a very
aggressive blade like pattern. They dig in too much.
(18:01):
Exactly. They can kind of lock into the
turf or grass. So when the player tries to
rotate their Bunny quickly, the foot stays planted, stuck.
That creates immense rotational torque, a powerful twisting
force right through the knee joint.
That's what snaps the ACL. So safer stud designs are
needed, yes. The shift has been towards
conical or circular studs. These still provide the
(18:24):
necessary grip for acceleration and traction, but they allow the
foot to release more easily during rotation.
They help prevent that dangerousplant stuck twist scenario.
OK, so the problems were clear. Wrong foot shape?
Dangerous stud patterns. Let's talk about the solutions.
We have to give credit to the brands that stepped up first.
(18:45):
Ida Sports seems like the real pioneer here.
Ida Sports absolutely deserves huge recognition.
Founded by Laura Youngson, they were, to my knowledge, the very
first company to commit fully todesigning football quits built
on a female specific last not just tweaking a men's design,
but starting from scratch with the female foot.
And the inspiration came from personal experience.
(19:06):
Right, it did. Laura Youngson played in this
record-breaking football match held at the highest altitude
ever up on Mount Kilimanjaro. She saw first hand how much pain
she and the other female playerswere in specifically because
they were forced to wear I'll fitting men's or youth boots.
That direct experience of the problem sparked the drive to
create the solution. That's a great origin story.
(19:28):
So what makes IDEA boots like their models?
The Helium? The Rise specifically suited for
women. They incorporate all those key
anatomical insights. They feature wider toe boxes to
accommodate the typically wider female forefoot.
They have narrower heel cups fora snugger, more secure fit at
the back. They include enhanced arch
support, addressing the generally higher female arch.
(19:50):
And crucially, they use conical studs for that safer rotational
release. Doctor Richards specifically
liked those features, didn't she?
The arch support and the studs. Yeah, she highlighted the built
in Arch support and the conical stud configuration as
particularly important features,elements that provide necessary
performance characteristics without compromising safety.
So ID approved it was possible and necessary.
(20:12):
Then the bigger players like Adidas started investing heavily
too. Not just designing, but testing.
Yes, Adidas really put resourcesinto biomechanical testing.
They developed their F50 women'scleat again using a female
specific last offering customizable insoles and
importantly, using a circular stud pattern.
But the key was their research. They did a study comparing a
(20:34):
prototype female specific boot against the standard one right
during cutting movements. Exactly.
They took 24 female players and had them perform sidestep
cutting maneuvers, a common action where injuries occur.
They compared their prototype, the ACE 17.1 design for women,
against a control boot, the 15.1they measured forces acting on
(20:54):
the ankle and knee. And the big finding related to
the ankle measuring the maximum ankle inversion moment, can you
break that down for us? What does it mean and why was
the result significant? OK, so the ankle inversion
moment is basically a measure ofthe twisting force, the torque
that pulls your foot, in words rolling the ankle.
It's the main mechanism for those common lateral ankle
(21:15):
sprains. They measure it in Newton meters
M right? In the study, the standard
control boot produced a maximum ankle inversion moment of about
42.9mm during the cutting ocean,but in the female specific
prototypes that force dropped significantly down to 32.8mm.
Well, that's a reduction of about 10mm, nearly 25%.
(21:35):
That seems like a huge decrease in the force trying to twist the
ankle. It's a very significant
reduction. It strongly suggests that the
prototypes designed the female specific last.
The stud pattern was doing a much better job of stabilizing
the foot and preventing that excessive inward roll during a
high risk movement. Movement less force means less
risk of spraining the ankle ligaments.
(21:57):
OK, so safer for the ankle, but the crucial question then is did
making it safer for the ankle somehow make it worse for the
knee or slow the player down? That's exactly what they
checked, and the findings were equally important.
First, there was no significant difference in performance
metrics they measured, like how long the foot was on the ground,
stance time, or how fast the player approached the cut.
(22:19):
So the safer boot didn't hinder agility.
Good. And the knee?
The ACL risk indicator. Critically, there's also no
significant difference in the knee abduction moment.
That's the technical measure often linked to ACL strain risk.
So the prototype cleat successfully reduced the risk at
the ankle, without increasing risk at the knee and without
compromising performance. It was a win, win, win.
(22:40):
That's fantastic validation proof of designing specifically
for the female anatomy works. Puma also got involved with
their Made for Her initiative, right?
Yes, Puma has also committed to female specific design.
Their Ultra 6 Match Plus boot follows similar principles,
built on a last tailored for women, offering features like a
lower instep height, a snugger fit in the forefoot, improved
(23:02):
arch support and again using circular studs for better
rotational control. They also have that high tech
future ultimate cleat. Right, The Future Ultimate
showcases a lot of their tech. It uses things like the Hughes
Ionfi 360 upper, which is this complex mix of engineered mesh
and stretching. It materials designed to adapt
to the foot shape, reinforced with something called PWRTPE for
(23:25):
targeted support and outsole. The dynamic Motion system is
engineered for a specific combination of stability at the
heel and flexibility at the forefoot.
It's very detailed engineering. It's all sounds incredibly
positive, like technology is solving the problem perfectly.
But then we have the Nike Phantom Luna story, which adds a
layer of complexity, designed bywomen, for women, heavily
(23:46):
marketed, but didn't work for everyone.
The Phantom Luna was definitely a major launch, a significant
investment by Nike. It had a female LED design team
incorporated features aimed specifically at female players,
like the Anson Fit collar for ankle comfort, asymmetrical
lacing for a better fit, and their own circular stud pattern.
(24:06):
The Nike Cyclone 360 designed explicitly to reduce rotational
friction. Sounds great on paper, but the
reality check came with player feedback like from England's
Ella Tune. Exactly.
Despite all the research and tailored design Ella Tune
publicly mentioned she switched back from the Phantom Luna to
her old boots. And her old boots weren't even a
standard model, they were heavily customized.
(24:28):
Customized how? Get this, she wears two
different sizes, AUK 6, three quarters on one foot and A7 on
the other and apparently has personalized padding added.
Wow. OK.
Her experience and likely otherslike her highlights a crucial
point. Even the best intentioned, most
researched, mass produced, womenspecific boot might still not
meet the highly personalized fitneeds of every elite athlete.
(24:49):
Because individual feet vary so much, even beyond general male
female differences. Precisely.
Foot shape, volume, arch, height, pressure points.
It's incredibly variable for professional athlete whose
livelihood depends on optimal performance and avoiding injury.
Fractions of an inch and fit or slight differences in support
can make all the difference. So the tech is crucial.
(25:12):
The female specific lasts are a massive step forward, but it's
not a magic bullet for everyone at the elite level.
It shows the limitations of massproduction when dealing with the
extremes of human anatomy and performance demands.
And it perfectly sets the stage for the next part of our
discussion. Because if the equipment, even
the best new equipment, only solves part of the problem,
(25:32):
where does the rest of the solution lie?
Right. That Ella Tune example needing
such specific customization, it really underscores that even
with these amazing advancements in cleats and kits, we're not
seeing the injury crisis disappear.
So if the gear is getting better, what else is holding
female athletes back or putting them at risk?
This is where we have to zoom out from the individual product
(25:53):
and look at the entire system, the environment in which these
athletes train and compete, and the consensus is clear.
The issues are systemic. We're talking about biased
resource allocation, environmental factors, and even
cultural pressures. Let's start with the ground
beneath their feet. Literally the playing surface.
You mentioned the turf problem. Yes, the research here is pretty
damning. Study after study has shown that
(26:15):
female soccer players have a significantly higher risk of non
contact ACL injuries when playing games on artificial turf
compared to playing on natural grass.
Higher risk on turf for women but not for men.
That's the kicker. The same elevated risk on
artificial turf is generally notfound in studies of male
players. There's a clear gender disparity
when it comes to turf safety. Why?
(26:37):
What's the mechanism there? How does turf affect women
differently? It likely connects back to a
combination of factors we've already touched on the equipment
interaction and basic physics. Women, on average, are lighter
than men. Remember those high traction
stud patterns often validated based on the forces generated by
heavier male bodies? When a lighter female athlete
(26:58):
uses those same or similar studson artificial turf, which itself
can be quite gripped, her lower body weight might not be enough
to generate the force needed to cleanly release the studs during
a rapid turn. So the cleat gets stuck more
easily because she's lighter. That's the hypothesis.
The cleat digs in, gets caught in the turf fibers, and then as
a body rotates over the planted foot, bang, you get those high
(27:21):
rotational forces tearing through the knee ligaments,
especially the ACL. So the very surface they're
often required to play on is interacting negatively with
equipment perhaps not perfectly optimized for their weight in
movement on that specific surface.
It's an institutional decision creating risk.
It absolutely highlights institutional choices and the
most blatant example, the one that caused a huge uproar, was
(27:44):
the 2015 Women's World Cup in Canada.
Right, they decided to play the entire tournament on artificial
turf. The entire thing.
Despite the fact that every previous senior men's World Cup
and every previous women's WorldCup had been played
predominantly or entirely on natural grass, the players knew
the risks associated with turf. And a large group of them
(28:05):
actually sued, didn't they, arguing it was gender
discrimination. They did. 81 players from 13
different nations filed A lawsuit against FIFA and the
Canadian Soccer Association. Their argument was clear.
Forcing women to play the pinnacle event of their sport on
a surface deemed inferior and potentially more dangerous,
which would never be acceptable for the men's tournament,
(28:25):
constituted gender discrimination.
A. Powerful legal challenge.
What happened with it? Ultimately, the players withdrew
the lawsuit, and the reason theycited speaks volumes about the
power dynamics in sport. Fear of consequences.
Exactly. There was widespread concern
about potential retaliation fromFIFA and the national
federation's the organizations that control their careers,
(28:46):
their ability to play internationally.
The fear of being blacklisted orpunished for speaking out was
too strong. That's incredibly disheartening.
It shows how systemic bias can directly compromise player
safety and how difficult it is for athletes to fight back
against the institutions they depend on.
It's a stark reminder that decisions made in boardrooms,
(29:06):
often driven by cost or logistics, can have direct
physical consequences for players on the pitch and that
athlete welfare isn't always thetop priority.
OK, so the playing surface is one major environmental factor.
What about the demands on the players?
The workload seems to be exploding as the women's game
grows. The workload strain is another
(29:26):
huge piece of the puzzle, and it's directly linked to injury
risk, including ACL tears. Research has shown a clear
association between high match workload, especially combined
with extensive international travel schedules, and increased
injury rates in professional women's football.
Why is the workload hitting women's teams particularly hard?
Part of it is structural. Women's national teams often
(29:48):
rely heavily on their core groupof senior players for almost
every competition, unlike some men's teams that might rotate
squads more or use younger players for certain tournaments.
The women's tournaments are often highly competitive,
condensed events demanding peak performance from the same group
of stars repeatedly. Less rotation, more intense
games back together. Yes.
(30:09):
Studies looking at players who suffered ACL injuries found they
often had significantly more match appearances and carefully
frequently had less than 5 days of rest between matches in the
period leading up to the injury.That kind of chronic overload
leads to fatigue, physical and mental, and fatigue is a major
precursor to injury. Your muscles don't react as
quickly, Your coordination suffers.
(30:31):
You land awkwardly. And this intense schedule is
often happening within a system that doesn't provide equal
resources for recovery and preparation.
Right. Let's talk about facilities.
The. Disparity in facilities is often
shocking, frankly insulting. At the professional level, we
frequently see top tier women's teams forced to play their
league or even Champions League matches in stadiums shared with
(30:54):
lower league men's teams or evenreserve teams.
Meaning the pitches themselves are often not up to scratch.
Exactly. Worn out, eroded playing
surfaces increase the risk of slips, falls and awkward
movements. There was that infamous incident
in a UEFA Woman's Champions League match between Real Madrid
and Arsenal, played on a pitch normally used by Real Madrid
(31:16):
men's reserve team. Players were visibly struggling,
slipping, getting injured. Ian Wright, the former Arsenal
player, called the pitch conditions embarrassing and a
disgrace on live TV. And it's not just the match day
pitch, is it? Training facilities are often
unequal too. Absolutely.
There's been significant criticism, for example, directed
at some of the wealthiest Premier League clubs in England
(31:38):
for how they treat their women'steams regarding training
facilities. Like the Manchester United
example? Yes, that was a widely reported
case where the Manchester Unitedwomen's team was apparently
displaced from their regular training base to accommodate a
$50 million renovation project intended solely for the men's
first team facilities. That sends a pretty clear
(31:59):
message about priorities, doesn't it?
It sends a message that the women's team, despite
representing the same badge, is considered secondary, less
important, disposable when you don't have consistent access to
top quality training pitches andfacilities.
It impacts preparation, recoveryand ultimately injury
prevention. This lack of investment
naturally extends to medical support as well, I assume.
(32:20):
It does if you're dealing with subpar fields and crushing
workloads. You need absolutely top tier
medical care, physiotherapy, strength and conditioning
support to manage the strain andrecover properly, yet we hear
consistent reports of women's teams operating with
significantly less medical infrastructure compared to their
male counterparts. What does that look like in
practice? It can mean things like women's
(32:42):
teams being treated in temporaryor makeshift medical buildings,
having far fewer dedicated physiotherapy staff, sometimes
just one physio trying to managethe needs of multiple injured
players simultaneously compared to the extensive specialized
medical teams available to the men's side, less access to
preventative, careless support for rehabilitation.
(33:03):
It all adds up. And then you layer the financial
pressure on top of all that, thegender pay gap.
This is where the economic reality becomes a direct
physical risk factor. We know there's a huge gender
pay gap in football. The often sighted figure from
the last World Cup suggested women earn something like $0.25
for every dollar earned by men at their equivalent tournament.
(33:25):
How does lower pay translate to higher injury?
Risk. It creates immense pressure.
If your career is less financially secure, if your
contract is shorter or less guaranteed, you might feel
pressured to play through pain, to hide minor injuries, or to
rush back too soon from a more serious one because you can't
afford to lose your spot, your income, your.
You push your body beyond its limits because you feel you have
(33:46):
no choice. Exactly.
It contributes to burnout, that state of physical, emotional and
mental exhaustion. And research clearly shows that
burnout significantly increases the risk of overuse injuries and
acute injuries like ACL tears. The financial instability
creates a dangerous cycle. OK, let's talk about the final
piece of this systemic puzzle, the one that's maybe most deeply
(34:09):
ingrained training culture and body image pressures.
This is a really insidious one. For so long, strength and
conditioning programs for femaleathletes, either just blindly
copying models designed for men or worse, were actively held
back by outdated, frankly sexistassumptions.
Assumptions. Like like the idea that women
shouldn't lift heavy weights, that it's somehow dangerous for
(34:30):
them, or that it will make them too bulky.
This frailty myth persists, and it actively prevents female
athletes from building the specific strength they need to
protect your joints. And what are the key strength
deficits that result from this neglect, particularly related to
ACL risk? One of the most common and
dangerous imbalances seen in female athletes is having
quadriceps muscles, the front ofthe thigh, that are
(34:53):
significantly stronger than their hamstring muscles, the
back of the thigh. Why is that imbalance risky?
The hamstrings play a crucial role in stabilizing the knee
joint, especially during deceleration and landing, acting
as antagonists to the powerful quads.
If the hamstrings are relativelyweak, the quads can essentially
overpower them, pulling the shinbone forward relative to the
(35:15):
thigh bone, which puts immense strain on the ACL.
So preventing ACL injuries requires really consistent
targeted strength training. Absolutely.
Focusing specifically on strengthening the hamstrings,
the glutes, buttock muscles, andthe quadriceps, ensuring they
work together in balance to control knee movement.
But this kind of essential training is often inconsistently
(35:36):
implemented or undervalued in women's programs due to those
outdated beliefs. And external societal pressures
actively work against building that necessary muscle, don't
they? The body image scrutiny.
It's relentless. Female athletes face intense
scrutiny over their appearance. We see examples like the
American rugby player Ilona Maher, who is incredibly
(35:57):
powerful and successful, yet gets comments on social media
calling her too masculine or toobulky simply because she has the
musculature required for her elite sport.
That pressure must be immense. It creates a terrible conflict.
Athletes know they need strength, but society bombards
them with messages that being lean is the ideal.
(36:17):
This can lead some athletes to consciously limit their strength
training, or worse, engage in restrictive eating patterns to
avoid perceived bulkiness. Which?
Can lead to conditions like radius relative energy
deficiency in sport. Exactly.
Radius is incredibly dangerous. It occurs when an athlete isn't
consuming enough energy to meet the demands of their training
and base bodily functions. This doesn't just impact
(36:40):
performance, it impairs neuromuscular coordination,
weakens bones and connective tissues like ligaments, disrupts
hormonal balance, and significantly raises the overall
risk for injuries, including ACLtears.
And it ties into a lack of education around proper fueling,
too. Alex Morgan mentioned learning
about nutrition quite late in her career.
Yeah, Alex Morgan's comment was telling.
(37:01):
It highlights a systemic failureto educate female athletes early
and adequately about their specific nutritional needs.
Fueling strategies need to be individualized, and crucially
for women, they should ideally account for hormonal
fluctuations during the menstrual cycle.
Because the menstrual cycle affects injury risk.
Research suggests it does. Hormonal shifts, particularly
(37:22):
fluctuations in estrogen, can affect ligament laxity, how
stretchy or loose the ligaments are.
There might be phases in the cycle where the ACL is
inherently slightly more vulnerable.
Proper nutrition and potentiallyadjusted training loads during
these phases could be protective, but it requires
awareness and personalized planning that often is it
provided. So the entire system, from
(37:44):
training myths and body image pressure to inadequate
nutritional guidance, creates anenvironment that actively
undermines female athletes physical resilience.
It really does. It moves the focus away from
building strong, robust athletescapable of withstanding the
demands of their sport towards conforming to aesthetic ideals,
often at the expense of their health and safety.
(38:05):
Hashtag tag Outro. Wow.
OK, we've covered a massive amount of ground here.
We started with the the micro level details, the fit of a
jersey neckline, the shape of a cleat stud.
And we ended up looking at the entire macro level, system
playing surfaces, scheduling, medical resources, cultural
biases about strength and body image.
And if we pull all those threadstogether, the picture that
(38:28):
emerges is, well, it's complex, but also hopeful in a way, isn't
it? I think so because the
technological progress, the bespoke year revolution, the
tailored kits, the Ida sports cleats, the Adidas F50, the Puma
Future, even the learnings from the Nike Phantom Luna, They
serve as powerful proof, proof that the problems can be
addressed through focus, design and innovation.
(38:49):
They prove that the equipment part of the equation is solvable
when you actually center the female athletes needs.
Exactly. These technical solutions exist,
they're improving, and they are working to reduce the mechanical
risks associated with I'll fitting gear.
But, and this is the crucial take away, they also expose the
real core problem which. Isn't the female body itself?
(39:09):
No, the core problem isn't that women's bodies are somehow
biologically deficient or inherently more prone to injury.
The core problem is the genderedenvironment, as some researchers
call it. The systemic neglect.
Yes, the institutional failures in providing safe facilities,
the chronic under resourcing of medical and support staff, the
(39:29):
unsustainable scheduling demandsdriven by commercial growth
without adequate player welfare considerations, and those
pervasive cultural pressures that discourage necessary
strengths development and properfueling.
That's what needs fixing. We've seen clearly that when you
do start centering the specific functional needs of the female
athlete, whether it's designing a boot or structuring a training
(39:49):
program, you don't just chip away at that horrifying 4 to 8
times higher ACL injury rate. You actually unlock potential.
You allow these incredible athletes to perform closer to
their true physical limits because they're not constantly
battling your gear or compensating for inadequate
support systems. So this whole discussion about
(40:10):
gear and injury prevention, it really becomes a case study in
equity, doesn't it? It absolutely does.
It proves that equity isn't justsome abstract moral goal, it's a
fundamental performance imperative.
When you provide athletes, all athletes, with the specific
tools, resources, and environments they need to
thrive, their performance ceilings rise.
Period. So as we wrap up this deep dive
(40:32):
on the revolution in women's football gear and the ongoing
fight for a safer environment, the big question we want to
leave you, the listener with is this.
We've seen the transformation starting in soccer, but what
other sports are lagging behind?Think about basketball, hockey,
track and field, countless others.
Where are female athletes still potentially using equipment
based on male norms? Where are they facing similar
(40:53):
systemic barriers in training, resources and healthcare?
The progress in football shows what's possible when the focus
shifts. It underscores the absolute
necessity of continued research.Research that is athlete
informed, female led, and unafraid to challenge the status
quo. That seems like the only path
forward to truly ensuring the health, safety and ultimate
potential of all female athletes.
OK, get ready, because we were diving into something, well,
something huge today, a silent revolution that's been brewing
for decades. It really has.
We're talking about this fundamental realization that
for, gosh, how long half the world's athletes, female
athletes, were using gear that was just fundamentally flawed
(00:21):
for them. Flawed because the default, the
standard athlete it was always assumed to be male, wasn't.
It exactly. And that single assumption, it
wasn't just inconvenient, it actually compromised health,
safety and, yeah, performance for basically every female
player out there. It's kind of staggering when you
think about it like that. Generations of elite players.
Right. Operating with equipment, and we
(00:42):
mean everything from their sports bras, their shorts, right
down to their cleats, that was just, well, incompatible with
their bodies in motion. So our mission today we really
want to unpack here is this quiet revolution happening,
particularly in women's footballgear.
We want to pull apart the the science behind it, the cultural
shifts, looking at everything, jerseys, sports bras, those game
(01:04):
changing cleats. And crucially, connect all these
innovations back to that huge issue, player safety, especially
that ACL injury crisis we keep hearing about.
And the underlying systemic inequality, because it's all
linked, you know? Definitely, it's a big topic, so
we need to be systematic, right,Going skin out skin.
Out. I like that.
So first the kit, the apparel, then the footwear.
(01:27):
That's critical. And finally, we have to tackle
the bigger picture. The environment, the training,
the biases, all the stuff that even the best gear can't fix on
its own. Yeah, the whole ecosystem needs
to evolve, but thankfully those days of just scaling down men's
stuff, they seem to be ending. Let's dive in.
OK, so let's start right at the beginning.
You mentioned this shrink it andpink it era.
(01:50):
That phrase itself sounds so dismiss.
It it does, doesn't it? But honestly, it reflects the
reality. For a long time, there was so
little thought put into actual performance apparel for women.
It was just smaller versions of the men's stuff.
Literally, they're old kits. Often, yeah, it was a legacy
issue. Women's teams, especially early
on, often got the hand me downs from the men's side of the club
(02:12):
or organization. And even when brands started
making women's specific lines, the first step usually wasn't a
fundamental rethink. It was taking the existing male
pattern, scaling it down, maybe tweaking the cuts slightly.
Which completely misses the point, doesn't it?
Because it's not just about size.
Not at all. It fundamentally misunderstands
(02:34):
the differences. We're talking bio mechanics,
muscle distribution, even how women Thermo regulate
differently. It's complex.
There was a great quote, I think, from Cassie Looker at
Nike. She's the senior apparel product
manager in global football there.
She really nailed the differencein philosophy.
Oh yeah, Cassie Lookers insight was key.
It wasn't just about measurements, it was about how
the kit feels and what the athlete prioritizes.
(02:56):
What was the core difference? She pointed out.
She noted that extensive interviews showed men often
associate that tight, compressive fit with feeling
powerful. Like quote, like a superhero.
It emphasizes muscle, maybe feels aggressive, performance
ready. OK, makes sense.
But for the elite female playersthey talked to, the priorities
were different. Comfort was huge.
(03:17):
Feeling covered, secure, feelingprofessional.
They wanted 0 distractions from their gear. 0 distractions.
That's a powerful goal for apparel.
So comfort, coverage, professionalism, that's a
totally different starting pointfor a design compared to
superhero. Completely changes the brief,
doesn't it? It forces designers to think
about the experience of wearing the kit, not just the look or
(03:39):
the assumed performance benefitsof tightness.
So. If the old wave failed, what's
the new foundation? This bespoke kit revolution, How
does it actually start? It starts with the actual female
form. The new standard, which Nike and
now other leading brands are using, involves things like 3D
body scanning. Getting precise data.
Exactly. Scanning elite female
(04:00):
footballers from all over the world to build a detailed
anatomical map. They're building the kit design
from the ground up based on these real bodies, not just
adapting a male template. And that lets them factor in all
those complex things you mentioned.
Moisture, heat. The fabric needs to move with
the body. Precisely, It allows for a much
more sophisticated approach to functional factors.
(04:20):
How does the fabric manage sweat?
How does it keep the athlete cool or warm?
How does it stretch and recover during intense movement?
The old model just couldn't address these with the same
level of specificity. It makes sense that this level
of detail would affect even things we might not think about,
like the neckline I saw that mentioned seems minor, but I
(04:43):
guess not. It's a perfect example.
You wouldn't think the neckline is a performance issue, right?
But the research, the feedback from players showed it matters.
What was the issue? Nike found women overwhelmingly
preferred a crew neckline, not adeep V-neck, and the reason was
purely functional, very practical.
It's about getting the jersey onand off easily, especially over
(05:03):
long hair. Different hairstyles like buns
or ponytails. If you're struggling with your
kit before you even step on the pitch.
If it's pulling your hair or feels awkward.
That's a distraction. Back to the 0 distraction goal.
Exactly. It's a small friction point, but
removing it improves the whole experience.
It makes the gear feel seamless,professional.
I love that kind of detail. OK, so necklines are sorted, but
(05:25):
the real engineering challenge Iimagine is the lower body.
The shorts. Cassie Looker called it the
Goldilocks of shorts problem. Absolutely.
This is where the specific bio mechanics of female footballers
really come into play. They are, as Looker put it,
power generators, meaning meaning they often have
significantly more developed glutes, thighs and hamstrings
(05:48):
compared to maybe other female athletes or the general
population. These muscles are crucial for
sprinting, jumping, kicking power.
So the shorts need to accommodate that muscle map.
Right, but without being restrictive.
Think about the range of motion needed.
Deep squats, explosive sprints, sharp cuts, powerful jumps, the
fabric and cut have to allow forall of that.
(06:09):
So there's a balance too long and maybe they restrict that
deep end at the hip or knee. Could be or just feel
cumbersome, but too short. Then you run into that other
priority, feeling covered and professional discomfort feeling
exposed. That's another distraction.
Precisely, it's a tough needle to thread.
You need to design for maximum power output from those leg
(06:31):
muscles. Allow full dynamic movement but
ensure the athlete feels secure and isn't constantly adjusting
or thinking about their shorts mid game.
That really is the definition ofhigh performance gear, isn't it?
It just works. You don't even notice.
It when it's done right, yes. And this bespoke approach
focusing on the female athlete first has also allowed brands to
do something else really cool. Infuse the kits with meaning.
(06:56):
Moving beyond just function to storytelling, yeah.
We saw this especially around the recent major tournaments.
Kits stopped being generic sportswear and became like
canvases for national pride in history, specifically through
the lens of the women's game can.
You get some examples. Well, look at the Australian kit
for the last World Cup. It wasn't just an adaptation, it
was designed from scratch, specifically as a statement
(07:18):
piece for the Matilda's, the women's team.
Or think about the USA kit. It had design elements that
intentionally referenced the look and feel of the legendary
1999 World Cup winning teams jersey.
Oh, connecting to that history, That's powerful.
Hugely powerful. It gives the current players
that sense of legacy, of standing on the shoulders of
(07:38):
giants, you know? And some brands got really
creative with the details, didn't they?
Like Adidas with the Swedish kit.
Oh, the Swedish kit was fantastic.
Adidas went beyond just aesthetics inside the actual
numbers on the back of the shirts.
They integrated this collage. Tiny pictures of 57 different
Swedish female role models. Wow, woven right in.
(07:59):
Woven right in. So when a player pulls on that
jersey, they're literally carrying the inspiration, the
history of the women who paved the way in Swedish sport.
It's incredibly symbolic. That's amazing.
And England's kit? The Lionesses.
They seem to balance tradition with this new energy.
He did it really well. The home kit had to be white.
That's sacred in an English football tradition, right?
But they added these lovely personal touches, like having
(08:20):
the lionesses written on the inside collar.
A small nothing, but it fosters that inner pride, that team
identity. But the awake, it was something
else entirely. That red crush color?
Yeah, that was bold. Nike actually described it as
speaking to English counterculture, nodding to
designers like Vivian Westwood. It was meant to be aggressive,
confident, reflecting the attitude and success of that
(08:42):
team, not just a standard right away shirt.
So when you put all these piecestogether, the science driven
fit, getting rid of those littlefunctional annoyances like the
neckline, adding the cultural meaning, the emotional side for
the players must be huge. Oh, it's profound.
You have to remember, these are women at the absolute peak of
their sport. Global superstars.
(09:02):
Yet for years many were playing in gear that was fundamentally
not designed for them. Modified men's stuff, Scaled
down versions. That moment of getting the first
kit truly made for them. Cassie Looker described seeing a
player unbox that first bespoke kit.
The reaction wasn't just happiness, it was validation,
empowerment. It's that feeling of OK, finally
I'm seen, I'm respected. This game, this industry is
(09:25):
finally building things around me.
It's incredibly powerful. OK, so the outer layer, the kit
has seen a massive shift. Let's go deeper now, under the
jersey compression, wear base layers sports bras.
This seems like where the anatomical differences demand
even more precise engineering. Absolutely critical because this
functional wear the stuff right against the skin has an enormous
(09:48):
impact on comfort, performance, and even injury prevention, and
historically almost entirely developed with the male body and
mind. Right.
So female soccer players with their specific power generation
needs require really specializedcompression, don't they?
Especially lower body and core. Hugely.
The demands on their muscles areintense and the right
compression can help with stability of blood flow,
(10:10):
reducing muscle vibration, aiding recovery, but only if it
fits correctly. And the data shows their body
shapes are distinct, not just smaller versions of men, but
different proportions even compared to other women.
That's right, Research highlighted some key
differences. Female soccer players often tend
to have a smaller hip circumference relative to their
(10:30):
waist circumference compared to the general female population.
But, and this is crucial, they typically have a significantly
larger thigh circumference. Reflecting that muscle
development in the quads and hamstrings needed for the sport.
Exactly. So if you're compression tights
or shorts are based on average female proportions or worse male
proportions, they just won't fitright.
(10:52):
They won't provide targeted support where it's needed most,
around those powerful thigh muscles.
There was some specific data on the kind of precision needed.
Wasn't there something about targeting percentage reductions
in circumference? Yes, that came from a really
interesting study. They developed a prototype
compression uniform specificallyfor professional female players,
women in their 20's. The goal wasn't just general
(11:14):
tightness, it was targeted compression.
Well target. They aimed for specific
percentage reductions compared to the players relaxed body
measurements, roughly 81% for chest circumference, 95% for the
waist and this is the key 1A significant 78% reduction
targeted for the hip circumference.
Wow, 78% for the hip. So just to unpack that, that
means the garment was designed to compress the hips and upper
(11:37):
thigh area quite significantly. Precisely that indicates where
the design needed to provide themost support, reflecting the
density and functional importance of the musculature in
that region. For soccer players, it's about
stabilizing those key muscle groups during sprints, cuts and
kicks. Maximizing support, helping
recovery, maybe even reducing injury risk through better
stability. That's the goal, targeted
(11:58):
compression, not just squeezing everything equally.
OK. And we absolutely cannot talk
about undergarments without focusing on the sports bra.
That image of Chloe Kelly celebrating in hers after
scoring the winner the Euro 2022final, it became iconic.
It really did. It put the sports bra front and
center, didn't it? But its importance goes so far
(12:20):
beyond a celebration moment. It is arguably the single most
essential piece of kit for female athletes.
For comfort, obviously, but alsoperformance and health.
Absolutely. Poorly fitted sports bras aren't
just uncomfortable, they can cause real pain, impact posture,
breathing mechanics, even changegait.
And it's a shockingly common issue.
(12:40):
There is that statistic about breast movement during running.
Yeah, it's eye opening. Research estimated something
like 10,000 breast bounces during a 10 kilometer run.
Now imagine the forces involved over a full 90 minute football
match with sprints, jumps, changes of direction.
The need for proper support is undeniable.
Undeniable. And it's not just about
controlling bounds. Specialized design is also
(13:02):
needed for things like managing sweat underneath the breasts.
Yeah, which can cause really painful chafing and irritation
during intense activity. So again it comes back to fit
support and also material science.
Moisture wicking freezability. All nonnegotiable.
The goal is to eliminate pain and distraction.
Let the focus 100% on the game, not on discomfort from their
(13:23):
gear. OK, we've covered the revolution
from the skin out, bespoke kits,targeted compression, central
sports bras and huge wins for comfort, for performance.
But now we need to shift focus down to the feet because this is
where the conversation gets really serious.
Connecting directly to player safety, we're talking about the
cleat revolution and the ACL crisis.
This is without doubt the most critical medical issue facing
(13:45):
women's soccer right now. The numbers themselves are
stark, almost unbelievable. Women are anywhere from 4 to 8
times more likely than their male counterparts to suffer an
ACL tear. 4 to 8 times that's, that's terrifying.
And these aren't minor injuries.We see star players sidelined
for months, sometimes over a year.
Players like Kristen Press, Kayla Sharples, Tierney Davidson
(14:05):
and the NWSL, Their seasons, sometimes careers, are
drastically impacted. It's devastating, and for a long
time, the narrative around why this was happening focused
almost entirely on biology. Right, you'd hear about the Q
angle of the angle of the thigh bone or hormonal fluctuations
affecting ligament laxity. Blaming the female body,
essentially. Exactly.
(14:26):
It was framed as an inherent, unavoidable biological risk.
But with the latest research andthe gear revolution itself is
showing, is that a huge potentially preventable factor
was the equipment itself, specifically the footwear.
So the cleats they were wearing were contributing to the risk.
Overwhelmingly, the evidence points that way.
(14:46):
The fundamental problem, as experts like podiatrist Dr.
Carly Richards have emphasized, was this massive anatomical
mismatch. For decades, women were playing
in boots designed for men's feet.
Because the assumption was a woman's foot is just a smaller
man's foot. Pretty much, but it's not true.
Doctor Richards points out key consistent differences.
Generally speaking, women tend to have narrower heels relative
(15:09):
to their forefoot. They often have wider forefeet
overall. Yeah, and they tend to have
higher arches. OK, narrower heel, wider
forefoot, higher arch. How does wearing a boot designed
for the opposite, likely a widerheel, narrower forefoot, lower
arch cause problems? It starts with the last.
Remember the last? Yeah, the physical mold.
The shoe was built on the foundation.
Right. If that foundation doesn't match
(15:31):
your foot shape, you get instability.
The foot might slide around inside the boot, especially at
the heel. The arch isn't properly
supported. The wide forefoot might be
cramped in the toe box. And that instability, it doesn't
just stay in the foot, does it? No, it travels up the kinetic
chain. I'll fitting boots directly
contribute to things like ankle sprains and shin splints, but
(15:53):
critically they mess with pressure distribution under the
foot and affect your entire lower limb alignment.
Think pelvic tilt, how your tibia rotates.
It puts abnormal stress on the knee joint.
The foot is where you connect tothe ground.
If that connection point is unstable, the knee takes a
strain, especially during those quick changes of direction.
That's the mechanism that plant twist motion becomes much more
(16:15):
dangerous if the foot isn't properly secured and supported
by the boot. This is exactly why Doctor
Richards launched that POP pilotsurvey Protect Our Players in
2024. They needed hard data linking
the gear to the injuries. And they surveyed a good number
of players, right? Professional college, elite club
level. Yeah, 220 players in total and
(16:37):
the findings, they really hammered the point home.
Let's breakdown those numbers because this feels like the
smoking gun in the equipment debate.
What did the POP survey reveal? OK, first finding over 70% of
the players surveyed reported having sustained a lower
extremity injury, mostly ACL tears and ankle sprains.
The big ones. 70%, that's already high.
(16:57):
It is, but here's the crucial link to equipment.
Of those players who had been injured, a staggering 65%
reported that they were wearing football boots specifically
designed for men when the injuryoccurred. 65% of injured players
were in men's boots. OK, what about the uninjured
players? That's where the contrast
becomes undeniable. Among the players surveyed who
(17:19):
had not sustained such injuries,more than 70% reported wearing
women's specific. Boots.
Wow. So injured group mostly in men's
boots. Uninjured group mostly in
women's boots. The correlation is incredibly
strong. Exceptionally strong, it's
powerful evidence suggesting that simply wearing footwear
designed for the female foots anatomy is a major protective
factor against these devastatinginjuries.
(17:40):
But it's not just the shape of the boot the last is it?
The studs underneath play a hugerole too, especially in how the
foot interacts with the playing surface.
Absolutely critical. Many ACL tears happen during
those rapid pivot or sidestep cutting motions if the studs on
the bottom of the boot are too long or if they have a very
aggressive blade like pattern. They dig in too much.
(18:01):
Exactly. They can kind of lock into the
turf or grass. So when the player tries to
rotate their Bunny quickly, the foot stays planted, stuck.
That creates immense rotational torque, a powerful twisting
force right through the knee joint.
That's what snaps the ACL. So safer stud designs are
needed, yes. The shift has been towards
conical or circular studs. These still provide the
(18:24):
necessary grip for acceleration and traction, but they allow the
foot to release more easily during rotation.
They help prevent that dangerousplant stuck twist scenario.
OK, so the problems were clear. Wrong foot shape?
Dangerous stud patterns. Let's talk about the solutions.
We have to give credit to the brands that stepped up first.
(18:45):
Ida Sports seems like the real pioneer here.
Ida Sports absolutely deserves huge recognition.
Founded by Laura Youngson, they were, to my knowledge, the very
first company to commit fully todesigning football quits built
on a female specific last not just tweaking a men's design,
but starting from scratch with the female foot.
And the inspiration came from personal experience.
(19:06):
Right, it did. Laura Youngson played in this
record-breaking football match held at the highest altitude
ever up on Mount Kilimanjaro. She saw first hand how much pain
she and the other female playerswere in specifically because
they were forced to wear I'll fitting men's or youth boots.
That direct experience of the problem sparked the drive to
create the solution. That's a great origin story.
(19:28):
So what makes IDEA boots like their models?
The Helium? The Rise specifically suited for
women. They incorporate all those key
anatomical insights. They feature wider toe boxes to
accommodate the typically wider female forefoot.
They have narrower heel cups fora snugger, more secure fit at
the back. They include enhanced arch
support, addressing the generally higher female arch.
(19:50):
And crucially, they use conical studs for that safer rotational
release. Doctor Richards specifically
liked those features, didn't she?
The arch support and the studs. Yeah, she highlighted the built
in Arch support and the conical stud configuration as
particularly important features,elements that provide necessary
performance characteristics without compromising safety.
So ID approved it was possible and necessary.
(20:12):
Then the bigger players like Adidas started investing heavily
too. Not just designing, but testing.
Yes, Adidas really put resourcesinto biomechanical testing.
They developed their F50 women'scleat again using a female
specific last offering customizable insoles and
importantly, using a circular stud pattern.
But the key was their research. They did a study comparing a
(20:34):
prototype female specific boot against the standard one right
during cutting movements. Exactly.
They took 24 female players and had them perform sidestep
cutting maneuvers, a common action where injuries occur.
They compared their prototype, the ACE 17.1 design for women,
against a control boot, the 15.1they measured forces acting on
(20:54):
the ankle and knee. And the big finding related to
the ankle measuring the maximum ankle inversion moment, can you
break that down for us? What does it mean and why was
the result significant? OK, so the ankle inversion
moment is basically a measure ofthe twisting force, the torque
that pulls your foot, in words rolling the ankle.
It's the main mechanism for those common lateral ankle
(21:15):
sprains. They measure it in Newton meters
M right? In the study, the standard
control boot produced a maximum ankle inversion moment of about
42.9mm during the cutting ocean,but in the female specific
prototypes that force dropped significantly down to 32.8mm.
Well, that's a reduction of about 10mm, nearly 25%.
(21:35):
That seems like a huge decrease in the force trying to twist the
ankle. It's a very significant
reduction. It strongly suggests that the
prototypes designed the female specific last.
The stud pattern was doing a much better job of stabilizing
the foot and preventing that excessive inward roll during a
high risk movement. Movement less force means less
risk of spraining the ankle ligaments.
(21:57):
OK, so safer for the ankle, but the crucial question then is did
making it safer for the ankle somehow make it worse for the
knee or slow the player down? That's exactly what they
checked, and the findings were equally important.
First, there was no significant difference in performance
metrics they measured, like how long the foot was on the ground,
stance time, or how fast the player approached the cut.
(22:19):
So the safer boot didn't hinder agility.
Good. And the knee?
The ACL risk indicator. Critically, there's also no
significant difference in the knee abduction moment.
That's the technical measure often linked to ACL strain risk.
So the prototype cleat successfully reduced the risk at
the ankle, without increasing risk at the knee and without
compromising performance. It was a win, win, win.
(22:40):
That's fantastic validation proof of designing specifically
for the female anatomy works. Puma also got involved with
their Made for Her initiative, right?
Yes, Puma has also committed to female specific design.
Their Ultra 6 Match Plus boot follows similar principles,
built on a last tailored for women, offering features like a
lower instep height, a snugger fit in the forefoot, improved
(23:02):
arch support and again using circular studs for better
rotational control. They also have that high tech
future ultimate cleat. Right, The Future Ultimate
showcases a lot of their tech. It uses things like the Hughes
Ionfi 360 upper, which is this complex mix of engineered mesh
and stretching. It materials designed to adapt
to the foot shape, reinforced with something called PWRTPE for
(23:25):
targeted support and outsole. The dynamic Motion system is
engineered for a specific combination of stability at the
heel and flexibility at the forefoot.
It's very detailed engineering. It's all sounds incredibly
positive, like technology is solving the problem perfectly.
But then we have the Nike Phantom Luna story, which adds a
layer of complexity, designed bywomen, for women, heavily
(23:46):
marketed, but didn't work for everyone.
The Phantom Luna was definitely a major launch, a significant
investment by Nike. It had a female LED design team
incorporated features aimed specifically at female players,
like the Anson Fit collar for ankle comfort, asymmetrical
lacing for a better fit, and their own circular stud pattern.
(24:06):
The Nike Cyclone 360 designed explicitly to reduce rotational
friction. Sounds great on paper, but the
reality check came with player feedback like from England's
Ella Tune. Exactly.
Despite all the research and tailored design Ella Tune
publicly mentioned she switched back from the Phantom Luna to
her old boots. And her old boots weren't even a
standard model, they were heavily customized.
(24:28):
Customized how? Get this, she wears two
different sizes, AUK 6, three quarters on one foot and A7 on
the other and apparently has personalized padding added.
Wow. OK.
Her experience and likely otherslike her highlights a crucial
point. Even the best intentioned, most
researched, mass produced, womenspecific boot might still not
meet the highly personalized fitneeds of every elite athlete.
(24:49):
Because individual feet vary so much, even beyond general male
female differences. Precisely.
Foot shape, volume, arch, height, pressure points.
It's incredibly variable for professional athlete whose
livelihood depends on optimal performance and avoiding injury.
Fractions of an inch and fit or slight differences in support
can make all the difference. So the tech is crucial.
(25:12):
The female specific lasts are a massive step forward, but it's
not a magic bullet for everyone at the elite level.
It shows the limitations of massproduction when dealing with the
extremes of human anatomy and performance demands.
And it perfectly sets the stage for the next part of our
discussion. Because if the equipment, even
the best new equipment, only solves part of the problem,
(25:32):
where does the rest of the solution lie?
Right. That Ella Tune example needing
such specific customization, it really underscores that even
with these amazing advancements in cleats and kits, we're not
seeing the injury crisis disappear.
So if the gear is getting better, what else is holding
female athletes back or putting them at risk?
This is where we have to zoom out from the individual product
(25:53):
and look at the entire system, the environment in which these
athletes train and compete, and the consensus is clear.
The issues are systemic. We're talking about biased
resource allocation, environmental factors, and even
cultural pressures. Let's start with the ground
beneath their feet. Literally the playing surface.
You mentioned the turf problem. Yes, the research here is pretty
damning. Study after study has shown that
(26:15):
female soccer players have a significantly higher risk of non
contact ACL injuries when playing games on artificial turf
compared to playing on natural grass.
Higher risk on turf for women but not for men.
That's the kicker. The same elevated risk on
artificial turf is generally notfound in studies of male
players. There's a clear gender disparity
when it comes to turf safety. Why?
(26:37):
What's the mechanism there? How does turf affect women
differently? It likely connects back to a
combination of factors we've already touched on the equipment
interaction and basic physics. Women, on average, are lighter
than men. Remember those high traction
stud patterns often validated based on the forces generated by
heavier male bodies? When a lighter female athlete
(26:58):
uses those same or similar studson artificial turf, which itself
can be quite gripped, her lower body weight might not be enough
to generate the force needed to cleanly release the studs during
a rapid turn. So the cleat gets stuck more
easily because she's lighter. That's the hypothesis.
The cleat digs in, gets caught in the turf fibers, and then as
a body rotates over the planted foot, bang, you get those high
(27:21):
rotational forces tearing through the knee ligaments,
especially the ACL. So the very surface they're
often required to play on is interacting negatively with
equipment perhaps not perfectly optimized for their weight in
movement on that specific surface.
It's an institutional decision creating risk.
It absolutely highlights institutional choices and the
most blatant example, the one that caused a huge uproar, was
(27:44):
the 2015 Women's World Cup in Canada.
Right, they decided to play the entire tournament on artificial
turf. The entire thing.
Despite the fact that every previous senior men's World Cup
and every previous women's WorldCup had been played
predominantly or entirely on natural grass, the players knew
the risks associated with turf. And a large group of them
(28:05):
actually sued, didn't they, arguing it was gender
discrimination. They did. 81 players from 13
different nations filed A lawsuit against FIFA and the
Canadian Soccer Association. Their argument was clear.
Forcing women to play the pinnacle event of their sport on
a surface deemed inferior and potentially more dangerous,
which would never be acceptable for the men's tournament,
(28:25):
constituted gender discrimination.
A. Powerful legal challenge.
What happened with it? Ultimately, the players withdrew
the lawsuit, and the reason theycited speaks volumes about the
power dynamics in sport. Fear of consequences.
Exactly. There was widespread concern
about potential retaliation fromFIFA and the national
federation's the organizations that control their careers,
(28:46):
their ability to play internationally.
The fear of being blacklisted orpunished for speaking out was
too strong. That's incredibly disheartening.
It shows how systemic bias can directly compromise player
safety and how difficult it is for athletes to fight back
against the institutions they depend on.
It's a stark reminder that decisions made in boardrooms,
(29:06):
often driven by cost or logistics, can have direct
physical consequences for players on the pitch and that
athlete welfare isn't always thetop priority.
OK, so the playing surface is one major environmental factor.
What about the demands on the players?
The workload seems to be exploding as the women's game
grows. The workload strain is another
(29:26):
huge piece of the puzzle, and it's directly linked to injury
risk, including ACL tears. Research has shown a clear
association between high match workload, especially combined
with extensive international travel schedules, and increased
injury rates in professional women's football.
Why is the workload hitting women's teams particularly hard?
Part of it is structural. Women's national teams often
(29:48):
rely heavily on their core groupof senior players for almost
every competition, unlike some men's teams that might rotate
squads more or use younger players for certain tournaments.
The women's tournaments are often highly competitive,
condensed events demanding peak performance from the same group
of stars repeatedly. Less rotation, more intense
games back together. Yes.
(30:09):
Studies looking at players who suffered ACL injuries found they
often had significantly more match appearances and carefully
frequently had less than 5 days of rest between matches in the
period leading up to the injury.That kind of chronic overload
leads to fatigue, physical and mental, and fatigue is a major
precursor to injury. Your muscles don't react as
quickly, Your coordination suffers.
(30:31):
You land awkwardly. And this intense schedule is
often happening within a system that doesn't provide equal
resources for recovery and preparation.
Right. Let's talk about facilities.
The. Disparity in facilities is often
shocking, frankly insulting. At the professional level, we
frequently see top tier women's teams forced to play their
league or even Champions League matches in stadiums shared with
(30:54):
lower league men's teams or evenreserve teams.
Meaning the pitches themselves are often not up to scratch.
Exactly. Worn out, eroded playing
surfaces increase the risk of slips, falls and awkward
movements. There was that infamous incident
in a UEFA Woman's Champions League match between Real Madrid
and Arsenal, played on a pitch normally used by Real Madrid
(31:16):
men's reserve team. Players were visibly struggling,
slipping, getting injured. Ian Wright, the former Arsenal
player, called the pitch conditions embarrassing and a
disgrace on live TV. And it's not just the match day
pitch, is it? Training facilities are often
unequal too. Absolutely.
There's been significant criticism, for example, directed
at some of the wealthiest Premier League clubs in England
(31:38):
for how they treat their women'steams regarding training
facilities. Like the Manchester United
example? Yes, that was a widely reported
case where the Manchester Unitedwomen's team was apparently
displaced from their regular training base to accommodate a
$50 million renovation project intended solely for the men's
first team facilities. That sends a pretty clear
(31:59):
message about priorities, doesn't it?
It sends a message that the women's team, despite
representing the same badge, is considered secondary, less
important, disposable when you don't have consistent access to
top quality training pitches andfacilities.
It impacts preparation, recoveryand ultimately injury
prevention. This lack of investment
naturally extends to medical support as well, I assume.
(32:20):
It does if you're dealing with subpar fields and crushing
workloads. You need absolutely top tier
medical care, physiotherapy, strength and conditioning
support to manage the strain andrecover properly, yet we hear
consistent reports of women's teams operating with
significantly less medical infrastructure compared to their
male counterparts. What does that look like in
practice? It can mean things like women's
(32:42):
teams being treated in temporaryor makeshift medical buildings,
having far fewer dedicated physiotherapy staff, sometimes
just one physio trying to managethe needs of multiple injured
players simultaneously compared to the extensive specialized
medical teams available to the men's side, less access to
preventative, careless support for rehabilitation.
(33:03):
It all adds up. And then you layer the financial
pressure on top of all that, thegender pay gap.
This is where the economic reality becomes a direct
physical risk factor. We know there's a huge gender
pay gap in football. The often sighted figure from
the last World Cup suggested women earn something like $0.25
for every dollar earned by men at their equivalent tournament.
(33:25):
How does lower pay translate to higher injury?
Risk. It creates immense pressure.
If your career is less financially secure, if your
contract is shorter or less guaranteed, you might feel
pressured to play through pain, to hide minor injuries, or to
rush back too soon from a more serious one because you can't
afford to lose your spot, your income, your.
You push your body beyond its limits because you feel you have
(33:46):
no choice. Exactly.
It contributes to burnout, that state of physical, emotional and
mental exhaustion. And research clearly shows that
burnout significantly increases the risk of overuse injuries and
acute injuries like ACL tears. The financial instability
creates a dangerous cycle. OK, let's talk about the final
piece of this systemic puzzle, the one that's maybe most deeply
(34:09):
ingrained training culture and body image pressures.
This is a really insidious one. For so long, strength and
conditioning programs for femaleathletes, either just blindly
copying models designed for men or worse, were actively held
back by outdated, frankly sexistassumptions.
Assumptions. Like like the idea that women
shouldn't lift heavy weights, that it's somehow dangerous for
(34:30):
them, or that it will make them too bulky.
This frailty myth persists, and it actively prevents female
athletes from building the specific strength they need to
protect your joints. And what are the key strength
deficits that result from this neglect, particularly related to
ACL risk? One of the most common and
dangerous imbalances seen in female athletes is having
quadriceps muscles, the front ofthe thigh, that are
(34:53):
significantly stronger than their hamstring muscles, the
back of the thigh. Why is that imbalance risky?
The hamstrings play a crucial role in stabilizing the knee
joint, especially during deceleration and landing, acting
as antagonists to the powerful quads.
If the hamstrings are relativelyweak, the quads can essentially
overpower them, pulling the shinbone forward relative to the
(35:15):
thigh bone, which puts immense strain on the ACL.
So preventing ACL injuries requires really consistent
targeted strength training. Absolutely.
Focusing specifically on strengthening the hamstrings,
the glutes, buttock muscles, andthe quadriceps, ensuring they
work together in balance to control knee movement.
But this kind of essential training is often inconsistently
(35:36):
implemented or undervalued in women's programs due to those
outdated beliefs. And external societal pressures
actively work against building that necessary muscle, don't
they? The body image scrutiny.
It's relentless. Female athletes face intense
scrutiny over their appearance. We see examples like the
American rugby player Ilona Maher, who is incredibly
(35:57):
powerful and successful, yet gets comments on social media
calling her too masculine or toobulky simply because she has the
musculature required for her elite sport.
That pressure must be immense. It creates a terrible conflict.
Athletes know they need strength, but society bombards
them with messages that being lean is the ideal.
(36:17):
This can lead some athletes to consciously limit their strength
training, or worse, engage in restrictive eating patterns to
avoid perceived bulkiness. Which?
Can lead to conditions like radius relative energy
deficiency in sport. Exactly.
Radius is incredibly dangerous. It occurs when an athlete isn't
consuming enough energy to meet the demands of their training
and base bodily functions. This doesn't just impact
(36:40):
performance, it impairs neuromuscular coordination,
weakens bones and connective tissues like ligaments, disrupts
hormonal balance, and significantly raises the overall
risk for injuries, including ACLtears.
And it ties into a lack of education around proper fueling,
too. Alex Morgan mentioned learning
about nutrition quite late in her career.
Yeah, Alex Morgan's comment was telling.
(37:01):
It highlights a systemic failureto educate female athletes early
and adequately about their specific nutritional needs.
Fueling strategies need to be individualized, and crucially
for women, they should ideally account for hormonal
fluctuations during the menstrual cycle.
Because the menstrual cycle affects injury risk.
Research suggests it does. Hormonal shifts, particularly
(37:22):
fluctuations in estrogen, can affect ligament laxity, how
stretchy or loose the ligaments are.
There might be phases in the cycle where the ACL is
inherently slightly more vulnerable.
Proper nutrition and potentiallyadjusted training loads during
these phases could be protective, but it requires
awareness and personalized planning that often is it
provided. So the entire system, from
(37:44):
training myths and body image pressure to inadequate
nutritional guidance, creates anenvironment that actively
undermines female athletes physical resilience.
It really does. It moves the focus away from
building strong, robust athletescapable of withstanding the
demands of their sport towards conforming to aesthetic ideals,
often at the expense of their health and safety.
(38:05):
Hashtag tag Outro. Wow.
OK, we've covered a massive amount of ground here.
We started with the the micro level details, the fit of a
jersey neckline, the shape of a cleat stud.
And we ended up looking at the entire macro level, system
playing surfaces, scheduling, medical resources, cultural
biases about strength and body image.
And if we pull all those threadstogether, the picture that
(38:28):
emerges is, well, it's complex, but also hopeful in a way, isn't
it? I think so because the
technological progress, the bespoke year revolution, the
tailored kits, the Ida sports cleats, the Adidas F50, the Puma
Future, even the learnings from the Nike Phantom Luna, They
serve as powerful proof, proof that the problems can be
addressed through focus, design and innovation.
(38:49):
They prove that the equipment part of the equation is solvable
when you actually center the female athletes needs.
Exactly. These technical solutions exist,
they're improving, and they are working to reduce the mechanical
risks associated with I'll fitting gear.
But, and this is the crucial take away, they also expose the
real core problem which. Isn't the female body itself?
(39:09):
No, the core problem isn't that women's bodies are somehow
biologically deficient or inherently more prone to injury.
The core problem is the genderedenvironment, as some researchers
call it. The systemic neglect.
Yes, the institutional failures in providing safe facilities,
the chronic under resourcing of medical and support staff, the
(39:29):
unsustainable scheduling demandsdriven by commercial growth
without adequate player welfare considerations, and those
pervasive cultural pressures that discourage necessary
strengths development and properfueling.
That's what needs fixing. We've seen clearly that when you
do start centering the specific functional needs of the female
athlete, whether it's designing a boot or structuring a training
(39:49):
program, you don't just chip away at that horrifying 4 to 8
times higher ACL injury rate. You actually unlock potential.
You allow these incredible athletes to perform closer to
their true physical limits because they're not constantly
battling your gear or compensating for inadequate
support systems. So this whole discussion about
(40:10):
gear and injury prevention, it really becomes a case study in
equity, doesn't it? It absolutely does.
It proves that equity isn't justsome abstract moral goal, it's a
fundamental performance imperative.
When you provide athletes, all athletes, with the specific
tools, resources, and environments they need to
thrive, their performance ceilings rise.
Period. So as we wrap up this deep dive
(40:32):
on the revolution in women's football gear and the ongoing
fight for a safer environment, the big question we want to
leave you, the listener with is this.
We've seen the transformation starting in soccer, but what
other sports are lagging behind?Think about basketball, hockey,
track and field, countless others.
Where are female athletes still potentially using equipment
based on male norms? Where are they facing similar
(40:53):
systemic barriers in training, resources and healthcare?
The progress in football shows what's possible when the focus
shifts. It underscores the absolute
necessity of continued research.Research that is athlete
informed, female led, and unafraid to challenge the status
quo. That seems like the only path
forward to truly ensuring the health, safety and ultimate
potential of all female athletes.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!