Why Equestrianism Isn’t the Level Playing Field We Keep Calling It

For years, equestrianism has been held up as a rare example of true gender equality in sport. Men and women compete together. They ride the same tracks, under the same rules, for the same prizes.

On paper, it looks like the perfect argument for a “level playing field.” But the truth - the lived truth... is much more complicated. If we want to celebrate the progress equestrianism has made, we also have to be honest about the parts that still aren’t equal. Competing against men doesn’t mean the journey to the arena looks the same for everyone. And the journey is where the difference lies.

The Path In Isn’t Equal

This isn’t about confrontation, grievance, or pointing fingers. It’s about accuracy.
Yes, men and women ride against one another.
But they don’t arrive at the start line from the same place — or through the same conditions.

Here’s what shapes women’s journeys long before they enter the ring:

The Flexibility Gap

Equestrianism isn’t a predictable sport.
Horses don’t keep tidy hours, show days run long, transport shifts, and weeks rarely unfold the way they’re planned.

Women still carry a disproportionate share of the responsibilities that cannot flex easily:

• childcare
• school schedules
• elder care
• household coordination
• emotional load
• daily domestic admin

These patterns affect who can travel for opportunities, who can stay late at a show, who can commit to consistent training blocks, and who can take on yards or roles that demand unpredictable hours.

It’s not about choice — it’s about feasibility.

The Cost of Time Off - and the Disruption It Creates

Time away from the saddle affects women differently in equestrian sport, because the sport depends on continuity.

Here’s what breaks disrupt:

• fitness
• timing
• confidence
• partnership with the horse
• visibility to owners and selectors
• momentum
• income (for riders, coaches, grooms, freelancers)
• owners who move their horses
• sponsors who shift their investment

And while pregnancy and postpartum recovery are obvious interruptions, they aren’t the only ones.

Women in equestrianism are also:

• more likely to sustain concussions than men (a documented sports-medical reality)
• more likely to carry caregiving duties during illness or injury
• more likely to adjust their exposure to higher-risk riding or yard environments during periods where injury, recovery, or personal circumstances make risk harder to absorb.

In a sport where consistency determines progression, even short interruptions can cause long-term divergence.

Partnership is the backbone of equestrianism — and when that is disrupted, trajectory is disrupted.

The Network Effect

Equestrian careers are built on networks, not just talent.

Who puts you on a horse.
Who recommends you to an owner.
Who mentors you.
Who gives you responsibility early.
Who carries your name forward.
Who invests money.
Who opens a door.

Women dominate the labour of the industry.
They dominate participation.
They dominate amateur levels.

But when you move into:

• ownership
• coaching
• high-performance leadership
• investment
• governing roles

the gender balance shifts sharply.

It’s not exclusion — it’s outdated architecture.

Systems flow through the pathways that already exist — and pathways historically built by men tend to continue favouring men unless consciously redirected.

What This Adds Up To

None of this is about who works harder or wants it more.
It’s about recognising that the conditions around the sport aren’t equal — and those conditions shape who can progress, who can stay, and who gets seen.

Because in a sport where men and women compete directly,
the differences in the journey should matter more, not less.

Equality in the ring doesn’t erase inequality on the road to getting there.
A level field does not guarantee a level system.

Equestrianism can be equal.
It already has the framework and the potential.
But potential isn’t progress.

We don’t reach a level playing field by claiming we already have one.
We get there by being accurate about the journey -
and redesigning the parts that still leave some riders carrying more weight to the same start line.