THESE pages have long taken pride in promoting and celebrating women's sport. It took off in the 1980s when I was sent worldwide to report the likes of Yvonne Murray and Liz McColgan in their prime, and we have continued to highlight achievement and champion causes: a range of issues including access to equality of opportunity and funding. However, one has reservations about the announcement this week that UK Sport and Sport England are introducing a new code of governance, on pain of funding withdrawal.

A sporting Taliban seems to exist, a bureaucracy with a bias against females, and that has to be addressed. Organisations like the FA and SFA, each with only one female board member, are regarded by many women as the unspeakable in defence of the indefensible.

The new code will impact on national governing bodies through clubs to the grassroots, and is also aimed at local authorities and charities. The document spelling it out runs to 64 pages and a raft of requirements. Ostensibly it's to protect public money. Failure to comply could result in loss of government and lottery support and even withdrawal of resources for bodies wishing to host major events. The FA may forfeit £30m if it fails to comply.

The code is designed to achieve greater transparency in administration of sport bodies. Perhaps most challenging is the demand for at least 30% gender diversity on boards. Changes take effect from next April.

Laudable and desirable on the face of it, but the devil is in the detail. There are 83 clauses, boxes to be ticked. It will present headaches for the legal, financial, and HR departments of every organisation. It will involve massive additional bureaucracy, causing some sports to hire more staff. For smaller groups and charities costs may out-weigh rewards.

However, why as low as 30%? There are actually more females than men in the UK, so 50/50 would be more than fair. On the one hand a misogynist cabal seems to be trying to protect the historical role of men - like an explorer annexing the sports fields of Britain for men, because they got there first. On the other, women argue they deserve a greater role, voice, and access.

It's hard to disagree with the female view, yet positive discrimination can lead to decline in service, quality, and standards. South Africa had a policy of 30% non-whites for last year's Rugby World Cup. Favourites for the title, they lost to Japan in the opening match and struggled to finish third in the tournament. In wider South African society, post-apartheid legislation promoting positive discrimination in employment brought lower wages for poor blacks. Be careful what you wish for.

Sport governance in Britain has been overly influenced by white middle-class males from similar cultural backgrounds, many with a bias against females (which most of them would deny). Yet it is equally clear that many women have little interest or understanding of a raft of sports. They would also deny this, but evidence surely lies in the number of women attending these events.

It is absolutely right that women should have an Olympic platform in sports once considered the exclusive preserve of men, and consequently they should have a say in how these sports are run, but imposition of quotas in governing bodies and clubs may devalue the product. Board appointments should be on merit. If sports are poorly administered due to enforced uptake of ill-qualified board members - male or female - will have negative impact on participation, performance standards, and sponsorship.

Recruiting appropriately qualified staff is surely more important than ticking a box which says the candidate is of the "right" sex. Might enforcement of this 30% diktat not threaten quality governance?

Sport is devolved, so Scotland is mercifully exempt from the UKS directive, but sportscotland has been driving greater gender diversity without wielding a big stick, and is ahead of the game compared to England, having already achieved 28.1% of gender diversity on the board of Scottish governing bodies. "We agree with the high level governance principles in the UK Sport/Sport England governance code," said a spokesperson. He added that Scottish equality statistics are "encouraging" but acknowledged: "Further progress is required . . . but we are not adopting a mandatory single code for the organisations we invest in."

Governing body funding (not through sportscotland) has been withheld from high-profile men-only golf clubs, but sportscotland is unaware of any organisation denied resources specifically by them.

Progression on equality has been a component of their investment agreements with governing bodies for several years, and they are committed to the Scottish Government target for public bodies' boards of a 50/50 gender balance by 2020.

Anecdotally, he says sport bodies which have achieved greater gender equity claim to have become more successful - a view shared by UK Athletics and the ground-breaking Scottish Women in Sport. But SWIS founder Maureen McGonigle pointedly says: "We don't have a 28 or 30% gender balance in society.

"Setting dates for reaching gender balance targets in Scotland, would be helpful, but I prefer the softly-softly approach, carrot not stick. Otherwise, yes, we may have to consider compulsion."

Sport England is investing £493m into 46 sports between 2013 and 2017 while UK Sport has invested some £350m. Sportscotland investment from Scottish Government and National Lottery from 2013-17 is £297,905,000.

The FA, with just one female board member, has already been told this won't do, and are threatened with the loss of £30m if it does not reform. They face radical change to comply. The SFA has a main board of eight, and two subsidiary boards of 11, with some members serving on more than one board. But again there is just a single woman.

Sportscotland say they are "working with the Scottish FA to improve the situation."

The SFA say they make only three apontments to their board, and the others are in the gift of their constituents. A new non-executive directorship appointment is imminent, and they are in the process of appointing a female member to join the three women currently on the SPFL board. Their spokesman believed historical criticism of the misogynist nature of the oganisation was "justified", but insists: "That's not the organisation I recognise now."

They have appointed an inclusion and diversity manager, one of whose roles is to take the organisation to advanced level in the equality standard. "We hope these appointments will be a catalyist for further change."

McGonigle suggests: "A major part of the problem in sports bodies is the lack of confidence females have in going into a male environment." She has put a proposal before Nicola Sturgeon for workshops to mentor women in this context, and the First Minister has established a £300000 equity fund.

I believe sportscotland are fortunate not to have to impose sanctions comparable to England. If progress stagnates, however, I believe they may have to consider them.

Often it seems political correctness has gone to extremes in Britain. What next? A demand that 30% of football and rugby referees be female? Or that the media devote 30% of space to women's sport? If the ref is good enough, their sex does not matter. And if the story is good enough, the sex of the protagonists is equally irrelevant.

Our sexist culture must change, but imposing quotas is not the solution.