The shine of Emma Hayes’ star may have come off a little last week with comments about workplace relationships in soccer. The question is, should it have?
First some background. Recently Hayes was asked about the news that Leicester City was investigating manager Willie Kirk for an alleged romantic relationship with a player. The women’s game was also rocked by news that former Sheffield United manager Jonathan Morgan had a three-year relationship with a teenage player while at the same club. Hayes’ original comment was that player-coach and player-player relationships are inappropriate and the women’s game needs standards as it becomes more professional and world-class.
Of course the comments sparked a lot of concern. Relationships between players in women’s soccer are not unheard of. Chelsea itself has two romantic pairs on its roster. Last Thursday was Hayes’ first chance to address these remarks. She walked back the inappropriate part and shared she talked with her players about the comments.
Hayes shared an honest opinion. The situation raises a number of uncomfortable questions the modern game has to address. Starting with - is she right?
When I have questions about a workplace best practice, I go to the Society for Human Resource Management, the nonprofit specializing in workplace best practice. SHRM best practices notes that workplace romances are more common than thought and for an employer, it is near impossible to ban them. “Banning all romances is not terribly realistic. People will find a way,” says attorney Julie A. Moore.
SHRM and HR representatives recommend that companies have policies in place that do not ban office relationships but do put structures in place. For example, people in a relationship should have a way to discreetly share this with HR to allow the company to be aware of it, but offices should be allowed to prohibit personal displays of affection in the office. The company is told to document everything in case the relationship goes wrong, which sadly we’ve seen have serious consequences in some situations.
Do English soccer clubs have such HR policies? We know Chelsea, for example, made player moves to unite a couple on their roster. Awareness is obviously a factor. I think generously we can say that Hayes has a point here, that there should be structures in place (if not so already) to ensure that relationships between players can exist and do so in a way conducive to the work environment (which we tend to forget a soccer club is). For example, what protections are there for the fringe roster player dating a star who gets dumped by the star in a horrible breakup? Does that fringe player get dumped by their partner and club? Also, what constitutes a relationship? Modern dating is more complicated than what law traditionally views as a relationship so reflecting that fact is important as well.
However, when it comes to supervisor/employee relationships, HR best practices are clear - no. There cannot be an equal relationship when a boss dates an employee and there cannot be an environment of unquestioned fairness. In this case, what occurred between the managers and players is a bad idea based on employment best practice and Hayes is likely not out of line to suggest it.
So was Hayes right in her comments? Charitably, kind of. The word inappropriate is loaded and should not have been equally used. With the established traditions of players dating on a club, prohibiting them is not ideal. This is especially true for national teams (like the one Hayes is moving to) where players train and play together less often. But I think we can say Hayes is not totally off base that the game needs standard and protections for players and coaches in relationships. Failure to establish clear guidelines (if not already done so) expose the people and the brands to immeasurable harm. Just ask Leicester City. The FA and all soccer federations need to address now policies and procedures for intersquad relationships for the men and women.
There is another question that we should address - was she right to bring this up? As I constantly bring up we want coaches to be interesting and share what they’re actually thinking… until they say something we disagree with. In this case, she was addressing a major area of discussion in the game, but did she add something new or important to move the conversation? In her clarifying remarks she tried to explain that the women’s game needed to be more professional in its management but it was overshadowed by her no relationships statement. With the bright light of the U.S. Women’s Team about to shine on her, it won’t get easier with the media.