Invisible Labor in Athletic Family Systems: The Role of Wives and Girlfriends (WAGs) in Sport

Abstract

Elite and high-performance sport is frequently framed as an individual or coach–athlete endeavor, obscuring the broader family systems that sustain athletic careers. Recent scholarship has begun to document the central role of wives and partners within athletic family systems, highlighting the extensive emotional, domestic, logistical, and identity-related labor they perform to support athletic participation and success. Despite its centrality, this labor remains largely invisible within sport science research, organizational policy, and athlete support structures. Drawing on feminist theories of care and family system theory, this narrative review synthesizes interdisciplinary literature examining the unpaid and unrecognized labor of women partners, also commonly referred to as the wives and girlfriends (WAGs), across athletic career stages. Implications for research, policy, and practice are discussed.

1. Introduction

Elite and high-performance sport is commonly framed as an individual pursuit or, at most, a dyadic relationship between athlete and coach. Dominant sport science paradigms have historically privileged individual-level variables such as physiological capacity, psychological skills, training load, and performance outcomes as the primary determinants of success (Blount et al. 2024; Fletcher and Sarkar 2013; Fletcher and Wagstaff 2009). While these approaches have generated important insights, they often obscure the broader social and relational systems that enable athletic careers to be initiated, sustained, and successfully navigated over time. In particular, the family context—and intimate partners within that context—has remained largely peripheral within sport science scholarship.

1.1. System Theory Within Sport

Athletic careers are embedded within complex family systems that shape development, performance, and well-being across the lifespan (Minuchin 1974; Wylleman and Lavallee 2004). From early specialization through elite competition and eventual retirement, athletes’ decisions, resources, and capacity to cope with demands are profoundly influenced by relational networks (Wylleman and Lavallee 2004; Knight and Holt 2014). Despite growing recognition of psychosocial support as a critical component of performance and well-being, research attention has disproportionately focused on parents of youth athletes or formal support personnel such as coaches, sport psychologists, and medical staff (Knight and Holt 2014; Henriksen et al. 2020) Adult intimate partners, by contrast, remain underexamined, even as the lifestyle demands of elite and professional sport intensify (Blount et al. 2024; Ryba et al. 2017). These partners, often referred to as the wives and girlfriends or “WAGs” involve a new line of empirical research—as their responsibilities make them stakeholders in the success of their partner’s sport endeavors (Ryba et al. 2017; McGillivray and McIntosh 2006). These demands include extensive travel, geographic relocation, income precarity, injury risk, public scrutiny, and career uncertainty, all of which extend beyond the athlete to shape family life (Ryba et al. 2017; McGillivray and McIntosh 2006). While the term “wives and girlfriends” (WAGs) has historically carried derogatory or trivializing connotations, this review engages the term critically and, in part, reclaimingly—using it to draw attention to a population whose labor has been systematically overlooked in sport research. Where appropriate, the term “women partners” is used to maintain conceptual clarity and avoid reinforcing reductive stereotypes.

Within these athletic family systems, women partners of athletes—most commonly wives or long-term female partners—perform extensive emotional, domestic, logistical, and identity-related labor that enables athletic participation and success (Blount et al. 2024; McGillivray and McIntosh 2006; Dixon et al. 2008). This labor includes managing household responsibilities, coordinating daily life around training and competition schedules, providing emotional regulation during periods of performance stress or injury, and sustaining relational stability amid uncertainty (Blount et al. 2024; Kay 2006). Much of this work is unpaid, informal, and rendered invisible through gendered expectations that position support and care as natural expressions of femininity rather than as forms of labor (Dixon et al. 2008; Kay 2006).

1.2. Invisible Labor Within Family Systems in Sport

Feminist scholars have long documented how women’s labor becomes systematically devalued and obscured through social processes that frame care, emotional support, and relational maintenance as moral obligations or acts of love rather than work (Hochschild 1983; Daminger 2019). In sport contexts, this invisibility is further reinforced by meritocratic narratives that attribute athletic success to individual talent, discipline, and resilience (Bourdieu 1990). Such narratives mask the collective and relational foundations of performance, positioning partners’ contributions as peripheral or irrelevant to sporting outcomes. As a result, women partners’ labor remains largely absent from sport science research, organizational policy, and athlete support structures.

The consequences of this invisibility are significant. At an individual level, sustained emotional and practical demands may contribute to stress, burnout, identity disruption, and compromised well-being among women partners (Blount et al. 2024; Norman 2010). At a relational level, unacknowledged labor can generate power imbalances, resentment, and strain within athletic partnerships (Norman 2010; Acker 1990). At a structural level, the exclusion of partners from formal support systems perpetuates gender inequities within sport organizations and undermines the effectiveness of holistic athlete well-being initiatives that fail to account for relational contexts (Acker 1990; Ortiz 2011, 2020). (See

Table 1. Conceptual domains framing woman partners’ invisible labor in athletic family systems.

Conceptual Domain	Description	Relevance to Elite and High-Performance Sport
Athletic family systems	Interdependent relational units in which athletic careers are embedded, including partners, children, and extended family	Athletic success, injury, transition, and retirement generate system-wide effects that require adaptation from family/intimate partners
Invisible labor	Unpaid and unrecognized work that sustains daily functioning and relational stability, often normalized through gendered expectations	Women partners’ labor enables training routines, recovery environments, and lifestyle continuity, yet remains absent from performance-focused discourse
Emotional labor	Management of one’s own and others’ emotions to maintain psychological stability and relational harmony	Women partners frequently regulate athletes’ emotions during periods of performance stress, injury, deselection, and public scrutiny
Domestic and logistical labor	Household management, childcare, scheduling, relocation coordination, and daily life organization	Irregular schedules, extensive travel, and geographic mobility associated with sport intensify domestic responsibilities of women partners
Identity and relational labor	Work involved in sustaining athletes’ confidence, motivation, and sense of self while managing relationship dynamics	Partners often buffer identity threats during injury/retirement while experiencing erosion/marginalization of their own identities
Gendered expectations	Social norms positioning women as primary caregivers and supporters within intimate relationships	These norms normalize unequal distributions of labor and obscure the personal and professional costs borne by women partners
Meritocratic sport narratives	Discourses emphasizing individual talent, discipline, and resilience as primary drivers of success	Narratives mask collective and relational contributions, reinforcing the invisibility of partners’ labor
Career stage intensification	Variation in labor demands across developmental, peak performance, injury, transition, and retirement phases	Labor demands often intensify during injury and transition periods, when formal institutional support is limited
Structural invisibility	Lack of recognition within research, policy, and athlete support systems	Exclusion from formal support structures reinforces gender inequities and limits partner well-being resources

).

Family system theory provides a useful framework for understanding these dynamics by conceptualizing athletic careers as embedded within interdependent relational systems rather than as isolated individual pursuits (Bronfenbrenner 1979). From this perspective, athletes’ experiences, behaviors, and outcomes cannot be understood independently of the family contexts in which they are situated, as changes affecting one member of the system inevitably influence others. This relational framing aligns with the concept of Athletic Family Systems, which draws on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system theory to situate athletic development and performance within nested and interacting systems, including the microsystem (e.g., intimate partners and immediate family), mesosystem (e.g., interactions between family and sport organizations), exosystem (e.g., organizational policies and employment conditions), and macrosystem (e.g., cultural norms and gendered expectations) (Blount et al. 2024; Bronfenbrenner 1979). Within this framework, athletic success, injury, career transitions, and retirement are understood as system-level events that require adaptation across multiple relational and structural layers (Blount et al. 2024; Bronfenbrenner 1979). Intimate partners, positioned centrally within the athlete’s microsystem, are often most directly affected by these transitions and frequently absorb the emotional, domestic, and logistical consequences associated with athletic demands, despite remaining largely invisible within formal sport science research and institutional support structures (Blount et al. 2024; Bronfenbrenner 1979).

Complementing family system theory, feminist theories of care work and invisible labor offer critical insight into how gendered expectations shape partner roles within athletic family systems. Emotional labor, defined as the management of one’s own and others’ emotions to maintain relational harmony, is particularly salient in elite sport environments characterized by performance pressure, uncertainty, and public evaluation (Kay 2006; Lally and Kerr 2005). Women partners frequently assume responsibility for regulating athletes’ emotional states, providing reassurance following losses, buffering stress during injury or deselection, and maintaining stability during periods of transition. Cognitive labor, including anticipating needs, planning schedules, and coordinating logistics, further compounds these demands and remains largely unrecognized (Messner 2002; Ortiz 2020).

Despite the centrality of this labor to athletic functioning, empirical research explicitly examining women partners’ experiences remains limited and fragmented. Existing studies are often small-scale, sport-specific, or embedded within broader examinations of athletic lifestyles, dual-career couples, or transition processes (Bronfenbrenner 1979; Lally and Kerr 2005; Park et al. 2012; Stambulova and Ryba 2014; Brewer et al. 2010). Moreover, women partners are frequently positioned as secondary informants rather than as primary subjects of inquiry, reinforcing their marginalization within sport scholarship (Acker 1990; Stambulova and Ryba 2014).

There is also a tendency within sport science to treat partner support as uniformly positive or unproblematic, overlooking the costs associated with sustained caregiving, flexibility, and career sacrifice (Blount et al. 2024). Women partners may adjust or abandon their own professional aspirations to accommodate athletic demands, particularly in contexts involving frequent relocation or unstable income (Blount et al. 2024; Schinke et al. 2018). These trade-offs are rarely acknowledged within organizational policies or athlete support programs, which typically prioritize the athlete’s career trajectory above all else.

1.3. Significance/Gap in Literature

The need for a comprehensive synthesis of literature addressing women partners’ invisible labor in sport is therefore timely. By integrating interdisciplinary research from sport sociology, psychology, family studies, and feminist scholarship, a clearer understanding can be developed of how athletic careers are relationally produced and maintained. Such an understanding is essential for advancing more equitable, inclusive, and sustainable models of high-performance sport.

While emerging scholarship has begun to examine the relational contexts of athletic careers, including the role of intimate partners, the literature remains fragmented. For example, work by Ortiz (2011, 2020) has examined the social organization of athletes’ partners, highlighting how gendered expectations shape women’s roles within sport-related family systems and how partners often internalize expectations of support as part of relational commitment rather than labor. More recent scholarship has begun to extend this work by examining identity negotiation, mobility, and emotional labor among athlete partners (Culvin 2021; Sveinson et al. 2021). Similarly, recent reviews (Welcome and Hanley 2025) have begun to synthesize aspects of partner experiences, though often without a fully integrated theoretical framework that connects gendered labor to broader systems processes.

Additional scholarship across sociology and family studies (Gmelch and San Antonio 2011) further illustrates how partners navigate identity, relocation, and relational strain within elite sport contexts. However, much of this work is either sport-specific, descriptive, or not explicitly framed through concepts of invisible labor.

As a result, there remains a need for a theoretically integrated synthesis that explicitly examines how emotional, domestic, logistical, and identity-related labor is produced, normalized, and sustained within athletic family systems. This review seeks to address this gap by bringing together feminist and family systems perspectives to advance a more comprehensive understanding of relational labor in sport.

1.4. Purpose

Accordingly, the purpose of this narrative review is to synthesize interdisciplinary literature examining the unpaid and unrecognized labor of women partners within athletic family systems across career stages. Specifically, this review aims to: (a) identify key forms of invisible labor performed by women partners of elite and high-performance athletes; (b) examine how this labor is shaped and intensified across different phases of athletic careers, including development, peak performance, injury, transition, and retirement; and (c) consider the implications of these dynamics for future research, sport policy, and professional practice (Hochschild 1983; Bronfenbrenner 1979; Stambulova and Ryba 2014; McMahon and Penney 2013).

Although this review centers on women partners of male elite athletes—historically the most visible and studied population in this area—it is important to acknowledge that elite sport is not exclusively male-dominated, and women athletes and their partners (across genders) likely experience similar, and potentially distinct, forms of relational labor. The relative absence of research examining male partners of women athletes or same-sex partnerships reflects a broader gap in the literature rather than an absence of such experiences. As such, this review intentionally focuses on women partners within male-dominated sport contexts while recognizing the need for future research adopting more inclusive and intersectional perspectives.

By centering women partners’ experiences, this review contributes to ongoing efforts to address gender inequities within sport science and aligns with broader calls to adopt relational and systems-oriented approaches to athlete well-being (Ortiz 2011). To our knowledge, this merging of feminist and system theory has not been explored—making this examination innovative (Ortiz 2011; Sveinson et al. 2021). Further, making visible the labor that sustains athletic success is a critical step toward reimagining sport systems that value not only performance outcomes, but also the relational and human costs through which those outcomes are achieved.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Review Design

This article adopts a narrative review design to synthesize and critically examine interdisciplinary literature addressing the invisible labor of women partners within athletic family systems. A narrative approach was selected due to the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological diversity of research in this area, which spans sport sociology, sport psychology, family studies, gender studies, and public health (Lally and Kerr 2005; Park et al. 2012; Stambulova and Ryba 2014). Narrative reviews are particularly well suited to integrating theoretical perspectives, identifying patterns across disparate literatures, and advancing conceptual understanding in underexamined research areas. This approach is consistent with established guidance on narrative synthesis and theory-building reviews in interdisciplinary fields (Baumeister and Leary 1997; Green et al. 2006; Snyder 2019).

The purpose of this review was not to provide an exhaustive or quantitatively weighted synthesis of evidence, but rather to develop a theoretically informed understanding of how women partners’ unpaid and unrecognized labor is produced, normalized, and experienced across athletic career stages (Acker 1990; Bourdieu 1990).

2.2. Search Strategy

A structured yet flexible search strategy was employed to identify relevant literature. Electronic database searches were conducted using Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, and SPORTDiscus. Searches were conducted in January 2026, and were supplemented through manual reference list screening of key articles. Search terms were developed iteratively and included combinations of: elite sport, athlete partner, spouse, family systems, emotional labor, invisible labor, gender, and athletic transitions. Broad search terms were intentionally used to capture studies where partner labor was discussed implicitly.

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included if they:

• Addressed elite, high-performance, professional, or Olympic sport contexts;
• Examined intimate partners, spouses, or family systems of athletes, or provided theoretical insight relevant to partner labor;
• Discussed unpaid, emotional, domestic, relational, or identity-related labor;
• Were published in peer-reviewed journals or scholarly books;
• Were available in English.

Studies focusing exclusively on parents of youth athletes, coach–athlete dyads without family context, or recreational sport were excluded unless they offered transferable theoretical insights. No restrictions were placed on methodological design, allowing for inclusion of qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, and conceptual scholarship.

2.4. Study Selection and Analytical Approach

Article selection and analysis followed an iterative, interpretive process. Following title and abstract screening, full-text articles were reviewed for conceptual relevance. Given the narrative nature of this review, inclusion decisions were guided by theoretical contribution rather than methodological hierarchy.

The analysis employed a hybrid thematic synthesis approach, combining both deductive and inductive processes. The use of thematic synthesis within a narrative review is consistent with prior literature that emphasizes its utility in integrating findings across heterogeneous studies and identifying patterns in underdeveloped research areas (Thomas and Harden 2008; Braun and Clarke 2006). This approach enabled the identification of recurring forms of invisible labor while maintaining sensitivity to contextual variation across studies. Initial coding was informed by existing theoretical frameworks (e.g., feminist theory and family system theory), which guided attention toward constructs such as emotional labor, gendered expectations, and relational dynamics (deductive). At the same time, patterns emerging across studies—such as identity-related labor and career trade-offs—were identified through repeated readings of the literature (inductive).

Coding and theme development were conducted by authors 1 and 2. Where multiple authors were involved, discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus with all authors. This approach allowed for both theoretically informed and data-driven identification of themes.

2.5. Theoretical Framework

This review is informed by an integrated theoretical framework drawing on feminist theory and family system theory, which together provide complementary lenses for examining women partners’ invisible labor in sport (Blount et al. 2024; Minuchin 1974; Hochschild 1983).

Feminist theory, particularly scholarship on care work and invisible labor, was used to interrogate how gendered expectations shape the distribution, normalization, and valuation of labor within athletic partnerships (Hochschild 1983; Acker 1990; Messner 2002; Daminger 2019). Feminist perspectives highlight how emotional, domestic, and relational work is often rendered invisible by being framed as natural, voluntary, or motivated by love rather than recognized as labor (Acker 1990; Bourdieu 1990). This framework enabled critical examination of how women partners’ contributions are marginalized within sport science research, organizational policy, and dominant meritocratic narratives that emphasize individual achievement (Blount et al. 2024; Bourdieu 1990).

Family system theory was employed to situate athletic careers within broader relational contexts (Minuchin 1974; Wylleman and Lavallee 2004). From a systems perspective, athletes are understood as embedded within interdependent family units in which changes affecting one member—such as injury, selection, relocation, or retirement—have cascading effects across the system (Minuchin 1974; Bronfenbrenner 1979; Park et al. 2012). This framework emphasizes relational interdependence, role negotiation, and adaptation across the athletic lifespan, allowing partner labor to be conceptualized as integral to athletic functioning rather than peripheral support (Wylleman and Lavallee 2004; Bronfenbrenner 1979).

Together, these frameworks informed both the selection and interpretation of literature. Feminist theory foregrounded issues of power, gender, and inequity, while family system theory contextualized labor within dynamic relational processes (Acker 1990; Messner 2002; Daminger 2019; Norman 2010). The integration of these perspectives enabled a relational and gender-sensitive analysis of how athletic success is collectively produced and sustained (Blount et al. 2024; Lally and Kerr 2005)

2.6. Reflexivity and Limitations

As with all narrative reviews, this synthesis reflects interpretive decisions regarding literature selection, theoretical emphasis, and thematic organization. While this review draws from multiple disciplines, it is limited by its focus on English-language publications and by the underrepresentation of diverse cultural, racial, and sexual identities within existing research on athletic partnerships.

Nevertheless, the narrative approach and integrated theoretical framework provide a valuable foundation for advancing conceptual clarity and identifying priorities for future empirical research. See

Table 2. Key Literature Informing Athlete Transitions, Relational Dynamics, and Partner Identity Labor.

Study Type	Focus	Population/Context	Key Findings	Relevance to Current Study
Conceptual	Athlete career transitions	Elite athletes	Transitions require psychosocial resources and coping strategies	Establishes importance of support systems during transitions
Conceptual	Holistic athlete development	Lifespan athlete development	Athletic, psychological, and social domains are interconnected	Supports relational/system framing of athlete identity
Review	Dual career and transitions	Elite athletes	Transitions occur across multiple life domains simultaneously	Reinforces ecological perspective
Qualitative/Case Study	Talent development environments	Elite sport systems	Performance emerges from environmental and relational systems	Supports systems-level interpretation
Qualitative	Athlete retirement	Elite athletes	Retirement involves identity disruption and distress	Highlights need for relational support during transitions
Qualitative	Career instability	Professional athletes	Careers characterized by uncertainty and lack of control	Explains structural constraints shaping partner roles
Qualitative	Athlete identity	Elite athletes	Identity is dynamic and reconstructed across transitions	Supports identity labor framing
Qualitative	Cultural transitions	Athletes	Transitions are culturally and relationally embedded	Adds sociocultural depth
Conceptual	Interpersonal relationships	Coach–athlete relationships	Relationships are interdependent and shape outcomes	Extends to partner–athlete relational dynamics
Quantitative	Career transition intervention	Athletes	Psychosocial support improves transition outcomes	Supports importance of support systems
Conceptual	Emotional labor	Families/work	Emotional labor is invisible and gendered	Frames WAGs’ emotional labor
Qualitative	Mental load in families	Parents	Cognitive labor disproportionately falls on women	Supports gendered labor patterns
Mixed Methods	Cognitive labor	Households	Invisible planning and anticipation labor is critical	Aligns with identity labor concept
Qualitative	Women in sport culture	Media and sport	Women positioned as supportive figures in sport	Supports gendered expectations of WAGs
Qualitative	WAGs representation	Football culture	WAG identities shaped through support roles	Directly relevant to WAG identity construction
Conceptual/ Qualitative	Work–family dynamics and gender roles	Families (including sport contexts)	Women often assume supportive, rule-bound roles within family systems	Provides foundation for gendered partner expectations
Qualitative/ Conceptual	Gender, labor, and sport families (WAGs)	Partners of athletes	WAGs perform significant, often unrecognized labor shaped by sport structures	Directly supports relational and identity labor argument

Note: Table 2 provides a non-exhaustive synthesis of key literature informing athlete transitions, relational dynamics, and gendered labor, highlighting the limited attention to partners despite their central role in sustaining athlete functioning.

for key literature information.

3. Results

The findings of this review are organized into key domains of invisible labor identified across the literature, including emotional, domestic, logistical, cognitive, and identity-related labor. These domains emerged through an iterative synthesis of interdisciplinary studies spanning sport sociology, psychology, and family research. Across these bodies of work, partner labor was often described implicitly—embedded within discussions of athlete lifestyle, transitions, or support systems—rather than explicitly conceptualized as labor. Through synthesis, however, consistent patterns became evident, highlighting that women partners play a central role in sustaining the relational, emotional, and logistical conditions necessary for athletic participation and performance. Importantly, these domains are overlapping and mutually reinforcing, reflecting the systemic and relational nature of labor within athletic family systems. Collectively, these findings begin to suggest that athletic success is not solely an individual achievement, but is relationally produced through often invisible contributions of intimate partners.

Within athletic family systems, women partners perform multiple, overlapping forms of invisible labor that sustain athletes’ participation and performance (Blount et al. 2024; Dixon et al. 2008). This labor is multifaceted, encompassing emotional, domestic, logistical, cognitive, and identity-related work (Hochschild 1983; Daminger 2019). While often framed as informal “support,” these contributions constitute essential labor that enables the demanding lifestyles associated with elite and high-performance sport (Fletcher and Sarkar 2013; Fletcher and Wagstaff 2009). Importantly, this work is typically unpaid, unrecognized, and unequally distributed along gendered lines (Hochschild 1983; Acker 1990; Messner 2002).

3.1. Types of Invisible Labor

Across these domains, an important pattern emerges: while many of these forms of labor—such as childcare, emotional support, and household management—are not unique to athletic partnerships and reflect broader gendered divisions of labor documented in family sociology (Hochschild 1989; Walzer 1996; Daminger 2019), the intensity, rigidity, and structural constraints of elite sport appear to amplify these demands. Unlike more flexible occupational contexts, athletic careers are characterized by non-negotiable schedules, frequent relocation, and sustained performance pressures that shape athletes’ developmental environments and limit opportunities for redistribution of labor within the household (Stambulova and Wylleman 2015; Henriksen et al. 2020). As a result, traditional gendered divisions of labor may not only persist but become intensified within athletic family systems, particularly within sport cultures that reinforce gendered expectations of support roles for women partners (Toffoletti 2016; Pope 2019). This pattern aligns with broader evidence that rigid occupational structures tend to reproduce or exacerbate gender inequality in the division of labor (Williams 2000; Correll et al. 2007). Taken together, these findings raise important questions about whether the experiences of women partners of athletes are distinct in kind or degree from broader gendered labor patterns, and highlight the need for comparative research examining both athletic and non-athletic populations, as well as male partners of elite athletes within gendered relational systems (Messner 2002; Connell 2005).

3.1.1. Emotional and Psychological Labor

Emotional labor represents one of the most pervasive, yet least visible forms of work performed by women partners of athletes (Hochschild 1983; Daminger 2019; Sanderson 2024). Drawing on feminist conceptualizations, emotional labor involves the regulation of one’s own emotions and the management of others’ emotional states to maintain relational harmony and psychological stability. In elite sport contexts, women partners routinely manage athletes’ stress, performance anxiety, and emotional volatility associated with competition, injury, deselection, and public evaluation (Acker 1990; Brewer et al. 2010; Sanderson 2024; Brown et al. 2019).

High-performance sport environments are characterized by chronic uncertainty, performance surveillance, and frequent evaluation (Fletcher and Sarkar 2013; Fletcher and Wagstaff 2009). Athletes may experience identity threats following poor performance, injury, or non-selection, placing additional emotional demands on intimate partners (Blount et al. 2024; Lally and Kerr 2005; Park et al. 2012). Women partners often act as primary emotional anchors, providing reassurance, perspective, and emotional containment during these periods. This role frequently extends beyond competition-related stress to include broader identity regulation, particularly when athletic identity dominates athletes’ sense of self.

In addition to managing athletes’ emotional needs, women partners must regulate their own emotional responses to protect the athlete’s focus and well-being (Blount et al. 2024; Daminger 2019). Feelings of frustration, disappointment, or resentment may be suppressed to maintain a supportive relational environment (Messner 2002). Over time, this emotional self-regulation can contribute to emotional exhaustion and diminished psychological well-being among partners, particularly in the absence of reciprocal support or acknowledgment (Norman 2010).

Despite its centrality, emotional labor remains largely invisible within sport science research, which tends to conceptualize psychological support as the domain of sport psychologists or formal support staff. The informal emotional work performed by partners is rarely recognized as labor, reinforcing its marginalization within both research and practice.

Notably, this form of emotional labor often extends beyond what might be expected in typical intimate relationships, as partners assume responsibilities that parallel those of trained psychological support personnel, particularly during periods of injury, deselection, or career transition. Despite this, women partners typically receive no formal training or institutional support for managing these demands, raising important questions about role expectations, boundaries, and the redistribution of psychological support within athletic systems.

3.1.2. Domestic and Logistical Labor

Domestic and logistical labor constitutes another substantial component of women partners’ invisible work within athletic partnerships (Blount et al. 2024; Messner 2002; Sanderson 2024; Agergaard and Ryba 2021). Elite and high-performance sport imposes irregular schedules, extensive travel, and frequent geographic relocation, all of which disrupt conventional household routines (Blount et al. 2024; Messner 2002). Women partners often assume primary responsibility for household management, childcare, scheduling, and coordination of daily life around training and competition calendars (Ryba et al. 2017; Messner 2002).

This labor is intensified in contexts where athletes’ schedules are non-negotiable and prioritized above all other commitments (Messner 2002; Daminger 2019; Schinke et al. 2018). Training times, recovery protocols, travel itineraries, and competition schedules dictate household rhythms, requiring partners to adapt their own routines accordingly (Brewer et al. 2010; Schinke et al. 2018). Women partners frequently engage in cognitive labor—anticipating needs, planning logistics, and managing contingencies—to ensure that domestic responsibilities do not interfere with athletic performance (Blount et al. 2024; Daminger 2019).

Relocation represents a particularly demanding form of logistical labor (Daminger 2019; McMahon and Penney 2013). Athletic careers often necessitate moves across regions or countries, disrupting partners’ employment, social networks, and access to extended family support (Schinke et al. 2018; McMahon and Penney 2013). Women partners are frequently responsible for managing relocation logistics, establishing new households, and rebuilding social support systems, often while navigating cultural or linguistic barriers (Daminger 2019; McMahon and Penney 2013).

Childcare further compounds these demands. In families with children, women partners commonly assume primary caregiving responsibilities due to athletes’ training and travel commitments (Blount et al. 2024). This uneven distribution of care work reinforces traditional gender roles and limits partners’ capacity to pursue independent professional or personal goals (Blount et al. 2024; Acker 1990; McMahon and Penney 2013; Brown et al. 2019).

3.1.3. Cognitive and Identity Labor

Beyond emotional and domestic responsibilities, women partners engage in identity and relational labor that sustains athletes’ sense of self and relational stability (McGillivray and McIntosh 2006; Daminger 2019). Athletic identity often occupies a central position in elite athletes’ self-concept, particularly in high-performance environments that valorize total commitment (Daminger 2019; Wylleman and Lavallee 2004). Women partners frequently support the maintenance of this identity by reinforcing athletes’ confidence, motivation, and sense of purpose (Blount et al. 2024; Daminger 2019).

This identity labor becomes especially salient during periods of injury, transition, or retirement, when athletic identity may be threatened or destabilized (Stambulova and Ryba 2014; Brewer et al. 2010). Partners often act as informal counselors, helping athletes navigate identity loss and reorientation while simultaneously managing their own emotional responses to these transitions (Daminger 2019; McMahon and Penney 2013; Brown et al. 2019). However, the emphasis on sustaining athletes’ identities can come at the expense of women partners’ own identity development (Blount et al. 2024; Daminger 2019). Professional aspirations, personal goals, and social identities may be subordinated to the athletic career, leading to experiences of marginalization or identity erosion (Blount et al. 2024). These dynamics are rarely addressed within sport psychology or athlete transition programs, which tend to focus exclusively on athletes’ identity adjustment.

3.2. Career and Economic Trade-Offs

The cumulative impact of emotional, domestic, and logistical labor frequently results in compromised career trajectories for women partners (Blount et al. 2024; Lally and Kerr 2005). Research consistently indicates that partners of elite athletes are more likely to experience underemployment, career interruption, or withdrawal from the workforce altogether (Daminger 2019; Culvin 2021; Sveinson et al. 2021). These outcomes are not merely individual choices but are structurally produced through the demands of athletic careers and gendered expectations of support (Norman 2010).

Women partners may adjust their employment to accommodate training schedules, relocate to support career opportunities, or accept positions below their qualifications due to geographic constraints (Blount et al. 2024; Elliott and Maguire 2008). Over time, these adjustments can result in diminished earning potential, reduced professional identity, and long-term economic vulnerability, particularly following athletic retirement or relationship dissolution (Schinke et al. 2018; Brown et al. 2019; Elliott and Maguire 2008).

Importantly, these career trade-offs are rarely acknowledged within sport organizations or athlete support frameworks. Dual-career policies and support services typically prioritize athletes’ educational or vocational development, while partners’ career needs remain peripheral (Norman 2010; Lally and Kerr 2005). This asymmetry reflects broader gender inequities within sport systems and reinforces the invisibility of partners’ labor.

While career trade-offs among women partners reflect broader gendered labor patterns observed in dual-career households, the structural demands of elite sport—particularly relocation, schedule rigidity, and income instability—may exacerbate these dynamics. This suggests that while not entirely unique, the experiences of women partners in athletic contexts may represent an intensified manifestation of broader systemic inequities.

3.3. The Normalization of Invisible Labor

A defining feature of women partners’ labor within athletic partnerships is its normalization (Blount et al. 2024; Acker 1990). Gendered expectations position support, care, and flexibility as inherent responsibilities of women in intimate relationships, rendering labor invisible by framing it as an expression of love or commitment rather than work (Daminger 2019). In sport contexts, this normalization is reinforced by meritocratic narratives that celebrate individual achievement while obscuring the collective and relational foundations of success (Brown et al. 2019; Wylleman and Lavallee 2004).

The normalization of invisible labor limits opportunities for recognition, support, and redistribution of responsibilities. It also constrains women partners’ capacity to articulate dissatisfaction or seek institutional support, as doing so may be perceived as undermining athletic goals (Norman 2010). As a result, inequities within athletic family systems persist largely unchallenged.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this narrative review was to synthesize interdisciplinary literature examining the invisible labor performed by women partners within athletic family systems and to consider the implications of this labor for research, policy, and practice in elite and high-performance sport. Drawing on feminist theory and family system theory, the findings highlight that athletic success is not an individual achievement, but rather a collectively sustained outcome embedded within gendered relational structures (Ortiz 2011, 2020; Sveinson et al. 2021). Women partners’ emotional, domestic, logistical, and identity-related labor emerges as essential to athletic functioning yet remains systematically underrecognized and undervalued.

4.1. Reframing Athletic Success as Relationally Produced

A central contribution of this review is the reframing of athletic success as a relational and systemic phenomenon. Dominant sport science paradigms prioritize individual performance metrics and psychological attributes, reinforcing the notion of the autonomous athlete (Warriner and Lavallee 2008; Agergaard and Ryba 2014). However, the literature synthesized here demonstrates that athletic careers are deeply embedded within family systems, where partners play a critical role in managing the everyday conditions that make training, recovery, and performance possible (Blount et al. 2024; Daminger 2019; Bronfenbrenner 1979).

From a family systems perspective, women partners function as stabilizing agents who absorb uncertainty, manage transitions, and maintain continuity across the athletic lifespan (Blount et al. 2024; Fletcher and Sarkar 2013; Bronfenbrenner 1979). Injury, deselection, relocation, and retirement are not isolated athlete experiences, but system-wide disruptions requiring adaptation from all family members (Norman 2010; McMahon and Penney 2013). Yet, sport organizations and support services rarely conceptualize these events as shared relational processes, instead directing resources almost exclusively toward athletes.

This individualization of responsibility obscures the collective labor underpinning performance and reinforces inequitable distributions of work within athletic partnerships (Norman 2010; Bronfenbrenner 1979). Recognizing athletic success as relationally produced challenges meritocratic sport narratives and calls for broader conceptualizations of performance that extend beyond the athlete–coach dyad. Importantly, the patterns identified in the results suggest that this relational production of success is not merely a theoretical reframing, but is empirically supported through recurring evidence of partners’ central role in managing the conditions that make performance possible.

4.2. Gender, Power, and the Normalization of Invisible Labor

Feminist theory provides critical insight into how women partners’ labor becomes normalized and rendered invisible within sport contexts (Blount et al. 2024; Daminger 2019). The literature consistently illustrates that emotional support, household management, and flexibility are framed as natural expressions of femininity rather than as labor requiring recognition or reciprocity (Blount et al. 2024; Norman 2010; Wylleman and Lavallee 2004). This framing masks the cumulative costs of sustained caregiving and relational work, positioning women partners’ contributions as morally expected rather than structurally produced (McMahon and Penney 2013).

The normalization of invisible labor is reinforced by gendered power relations within both families and sport institutions (Blount et al. 2024). Athletic careers are frequently prioritized as primary family projects, while partners’ professional aspirations are treated as secondary or expendable (Warriner and Lavallee 2008; Agergaard and Ryba 2014). These dynamics are particularly evident in contexts involving relocation and unstable income, where women partners disproportionately absorb career disruptions and economic risk.

Importantly, the literature suggests that invisibility is not merely an oversight, but a structural feature of sport system that valorize total athletic commitment. Questioning or resisting unequal labor distributions may be perceived as undermining performance goals, limiting women partners’ capacity to articulate dissatisfaction or seek support. This dynamic underscores the need for critical, gender-informed approaches to athlete well-being that extend beyond individual mental health interventions.

It is also important to situate these findings within broader gender dynamics both within and beyond sport. While this review focuses on women partners of male athletes, similar patterns of labor may emerge in relationships involving women athletes and their partners, though these dynamics may be shaped by additional structural factors such as lower financial stability and reduced institutional support within women’s professional sport. The relative absence of research in these areas reflects a gap in the literature rather than an absence of such experiences, and future research should examine how gender, sexuality, and power intersect to shape partner labor across diverse athletic contexts.

4.3. Emotional and Identity Labor as Underexamined Dimensions of Athlete Support

One of the most significant findings of this review is the extent to which women partners perform emotional and identity labor that directly supports athletes’ psychological functioning (Blount et al. 2024; Norman 2010). While sport psychology has increasingly emphasized emotional regulation and identity development, these processes are typically examined at the individual level, with little attention to the informal relational labor that sustains them (McMahon and Penney 2013; Brown et al. 2019).

Women partners frequently act as primary emotional regulators, helping athletes navigate anxiety, disappointment, and identity threats associated with performance fluctuations and career transitions (McMahon and Penney 2013; Sanderson 2024). This labor is especially pronounced during injury and retirement, when formal institutional support may be limited or absent. Despite this, partners are rarely included in transition programs or psychological support initiatives. This exclusion is particularly noteworthy given emerging evidence suggesting that partners play a critical role in athletes’ psychological adjustment during career transitions, despite lacking formal recognition within support systems (Stambulova et al. 2009; Lavallee 2005; Wylleman and Lavallee 2004; Jowett and Cockerill 2003). See

Table 3. Identity labor performed by wives and girlfriends (WAGs) across athletic career transitions.

Context of Athletic Transition	Forms of Identity Labor Performed by WAGs	Consequences for Athletes’ Identity	Consequences for WAGs’ Identity
Injury	Emotional regulation; reassurance of athletic worth; reframing injury as temporary setback	Stabilization of threatened athletic identity; maintenance of motivation and self-concept	Emotional strain; prioritization of athlete’s recovery over personal goals
Career transition (e.g., transfers, deselection)	Informal counseling; narrative reconstruction of career meaning; support during uncertainty	Facilitation of identity reorientation and continuity	Disruption or suspension of partners’ own professional and social trajectories
Retirement	Guidance through identity loss; validation beyond sport; future-oriented planning support	Adjustment to post-athletic identity and life roles	Risk of identity erosion; marginalization of non-sport identities
Ongoing elite sport participation	Sustaining athletic identity through daily emotional labor and logistical support	Reinforcement of athlete-centered identity	Subordination of WAGs’ aspirations; limited identity development
Institutional support contexts	Absence of formal recognition or inclusion in transition programs	Athlete-focused identity adjustment frameworks	Invisibility of WAGs’ identity labor; lack of psychosocial support

Note: Conceptualization of identity labor and transition processes informed by athlete career transition models (Stambulova et al. 2009; Wylleman and Lavallee 2004) and literature on emotional and invisible labor (Hochschild 1989; Daminger 2019).

for identity labor of women partners.

At the same time, the focus on sustaining athletes’ identities often comes at the expense of women partners’ own identity development. Career sacrifice, social isolation, and marginalization within sport communities contribute to identity erosion, particularly when partners’ roles are narrowly defined in relation to the athlete (Warriner and Lavallee 2008). These findings highlight a critical gap in sport psychology and transition research, which has yet to adequately account for relational identity processes within athletic family systems.

4.4. Career Trade-Offs and Structural Inequities

This review also underscores the long-term career and economic consequences of invisible labor for women partners (McMahon and Penney 2013). Consistent with broader research on dual-career couples, partners of elite athletes are more likely to experience underemployment, career interruption, and reduced earning potential. However, these outcomes are often framed as individual choices rather than as structural consequences of athletic career demands. While the literature reviewed suggests that many partners of elite athletes experience underemployment, career interruption, or reduced earning potential, though these patterns should be interpreted cautiously, as they are often derived from small-scale or context-specific studies and may reflect broader gendered labor trends rather than athlete-specific dynamics.

Sport organizations rarely provide systematic support for partners’ career development, despite increasingly recognizing the importance of dual-career pathways for athletes themselves (Norman 2010; Brewer et al. 2010). This asymmetry reflects entrenched assumptions about whose careers matter within sport systems and perpetuates gender inequities across the athletic lifespan.

The economic vulnerability associated with career sacrifice is particularly concerning in the context of athletic retirement, where loss of income, identity disruption, and relationship strain often co-occur (Blount et al. 2024; Bronfenbrenner 1979; Park et al. 2012). Failure to address partners’ economic and professional needs undermines the sustainability of athlete support models and exacerbates inequities that extend beyond sport participation.

4.5. Implications for Sport Policy and Practice

The findings of this review have several implications for sport policy and professional practice. First, sport organizations should recognize women partners as legitimate stakeholders within athlete support systems. This recognition must extend beyond symbolic inclusion to tangible policy changes, such as partner-inclusive well-being resources, relocation assistance, and access to mental health services. A critical question raised by this analysis is the extent to which sport organizations bear responsibility for supporting athlete partners. While it may be argued that organizations are not directly responsible for the career development of individuals they do not employ, this perspective overlooks the extent to which athletic performance is relationally sustained. If partner labor contributes materially to athlete well-being and performance, then the exclusion of partners from support structures reflects a systemic gap rather than a neutral organizational boundary. At minimum, this raises important ethical and practical considerations regarding how far athlete support systems should extend when performance is demonstrably embedded within relational contexts. Second, practitioner approaches—including sport psychology, coaching, and athlete welfare—should adopt family-informed and gender-sensitive frameworks. This includes acknowledging relational labor, avoiding assumptions about partner availability, and actively addressing power imbalances within athletic partnerships. Third, athlete transition programs should be expanded to include partners, particularly during injury and retirement phases. Preparing athletes for career transitions without attending to relational dynamics risks undermining both athlete and partner well-being.

At the same time, it is important to acknowledge potential limits to organizational responsibility. Sport organizations may reasonably argue that their primary obligation is to the athlete as an employee, rather than to partners whose lives and careers fall outside organizational purview (Lavallee 2005; Stambulova et al. 2009). However, a growing body of research suggests that athlete well-being and performance are embedded within broader relational and environmental contexts, including close personal relationships (Wylleman and Lavallee 2004; Stambulova and Wylleman 2015; Jowett 2007). From a systems and ecological perspective, outcomes such as adjustment, well-being, and performance are co-constructed within these relational networks rather than residing solely within the individual athlete (Henriksen et al. 2020). Accordingly, a failure to account for partner experiences may ultimately limit the effectiveness of athlete-centered support systems. Thus, the question is not whether organizations are solely responsible for partners, but how far support systems should extend when performance is relationally sustained.

4.6. Implications for Future Research

This review highlights several priorities for future research. There is a clear need for empirical studies that center women partners as primary participants, rather than as peripheral informants. Qualitative and longitudinal designs are particularly well suited to capturing the evolving nature of invisible labor across athletic career stages. Future research should also adopt intersectional approaches to examine how race, class, nationality, sexuality, and family structure shape experiences of partner labor. Much of the existing literature reflects Western, heterosexual, and middle-class contexts, limiting the generalizability of findings. Additionally, integrating partner perspectives into athlete well-being and performance research would provide a more comprehensive understanding of how sport systems function in practice. Such integration would challenge individualistic paradigms and advance more equitable models of sport participation. Finally, Future research should examine how partner labor is perceived by athletes themselves, including the extent to which athletes recognize, value, or rely upon this support. Understanding these perceptions would provide a more complete picture of how relational dynamics contribute to performance and well-being within athletic systems.

4.7. Strengths and Limitations

The strengths of this review lie in its interdisciplinary scope and theoretically integrated approach. By combining feminist theory and family system theory, this review offers a relational and gender-sensitive synthesis of a fragmented body of literature. However, the narrative design also entails several limitations. First, this review focuses specifically on women partners of male athletes, reflecting the current distribution of available research. As such, the experiences of male partners, same-sex couples, and partners of women athletes remain underexplored and represent important directions for future research. Second, the reliance on English-language publications and predominantly Western samples limits the generalizability of the findings. Third, as a narrative review, this study does not aim to provide an exhaustive or systematically weighted synthesis of evidence; rather, it reflects interpretive decisions regarding literature selection and thematic emphasis. Despite these limitations, the integrated theoretical framework offers a valuable foundation for advancing conceptual clarity in an emerging area of research.

5. Conclusions

This narrative review demonstrates that elite and high-performance sport is sustained not solely by individual athletes or formal support staff, but by complex athletic family systems in which women partners perform extensive and essential invisible labor (Blount et al. 2024; Ortiz 2011, 2020). Across emotional, domestic, logistical, cognitive, and identity-related domains, women partners absorb much of the relational and practical work required to maintain athletic participation and performance (Blount et al. 2024; Bronfenbrenner 1979; Sanderson 2024). Yet, this labor remains largely unrecognized within sport science research, organizational policy, and athlete support structures, reinforcing gendered inequities and obscuring the relational foundations of athletic success (Norman 2010; McMahon and Penney 2013; Sveinson et al. 2021).

By integrating feminist theories of care work with family system theory, this review reframes athletic achievement as a collectively produced outcome embedded within gendered social structures. The findings challenge dominant meritocratic narratives in sport that privilege autonomy, individual resilience, and performance metrics while overlooking the unpaid labor that stabilizes athletic careers across development, peak performance, injury, transition, and retirement (Ortiz 2011; Culvin 2021). Importantly, the normalization of women partners’ labor—often framed as love, flexibility, or natural support—functions as a structural mechanism through which inequity is reproduced, limiting recognition, reciprocity, and institutional responsibility (Blount et al. 2024; Norman 2010; Sveinson et al. 2021).

Making women partners’ labor visible has critical implications for sport research, policy, and practice. Sport organizations and practitioners must move beyond athlete-centric models of well-being to adopt family-informed and gender-sensitive approaches that recognize partners as legitimate stakeholders within athletic systems (Ortiz 2020; Sveinson et al. 2021). This includes expanding transition programs, mental health services, and dual-career support to explicitly include partners while also critically examining organizational norms that implicitly rely on women’s unpaid labor to sustain performance. For researchers, centering women partners’ lived experiences—particularly through longitudinal, intersectional, and qualitative designs—offers an essential pathway toward more equitable and contextually grounded understandings of how athletic careers are produced and sustained.

Ultimately, recognizing the invisible labor of women partners is not simply an ethical concern, but a necessary step toward building more sustainable, humane, and socially just sport systems. Athletic success is relationally achieved, and acknowledging the labor that makes it possible is fundamental to reimagining high-performance sport in ways that value both performance and the people who support it.