Compare this with the response of New Zealand Rugby after being singled out by the Human Rights Commission in 2012 for the absence of females in decision-making roles.
In a withering assessment of the national game, the equal opportunities commissioner for the Human Rights Commission at the time, Dr Judy McGregor, described rugby the "last bastion of chauvinism".
"When you have absolutely no women involved in the decision-making ... despite the fact women hold many rugby clubs together, it shows there is a big problem. There needs to be reform and change at all levels."
That was 2 years ago. So what has happened in the period since NZ Rugby was delivered this stunning broadside? Nothing.
The national body still has no female representation on its board. The Blues, Chiefs and Highlanders also lack a female voice at the boardroom table - at least they can't be accused of tokenism.
The Hurricanes and Crusaders each have one woman on their board of directors, but still below the extremely modest target of at least 20 per cent female representation set by the International Olympic Committee nearly 20 years ago - a charter outgoing NZ Rugby chairman Mike Eagle claims his body endorses.
In response to the HRC's criticism of the national game, Eagle acknowledged the absence of women in governance was an issue for the organisation.
"Over the next few years we hope there will be a better balanced representation on our board to reflect the important role that women have in playing and supporting our sport."
Sitting back and hoping the gender imbalance would suddenly right itself was never going to be work.
Little has changed over that time because nobody in the game's upper echelons of power has been prepared to stand up and demand change.
At this point I should probably tackle that tired old argument that is often wheeled out whenever gender diversity is promoted. That is, that gender is irrelevant - boards should be appointed on merit ... it's just PC gone mad!
To these people apparently it is just entirely coincidental that it is the same white men who created the system that are always deemed to have the most merit. There have been women in this country with enough "merit" to be elected Prime Minister, serve as Governor-General, hold the highest position in our judicial system, and lead one of our biggest banks, yet supposedly in 123 years of existence New Zealand Rugby has never been able to find a woman deemed worthy of being granted a say at the boardroom table.
What is more likely the case is NZ Rugby's lack of female representation is symptomatic of what Broderick calls "gender asbestos", meaning male domination and rule is part of the sport's foundations. Correcting this is not going to happen without intervention.
Sadly, given the male-dominated sports are mostly run by men, it is men - not women who have advocated for decades - who are going to have more success making change on the gender equity front.
But what more motivation does NZ Rugby need than the abundance of research in good management practice that suggests the organisation is doing itself a disservice by not considering female viewpoints in its decision-making.
In the words of McGregor: "Contemporary organisations have contemporary boards and if you continue to have an entirely all-male rugby board, well, that is saying something to the world".
