Periods and White Kit: Wimbledon's Dress Code and the Push for Dark Shorts

Timeline

1. Mar 2022Women in Sport publishes research on why teenage girls drop out of sport, including periods.
2. Jul 9, 2022Address The Dress Code campaigners protest in red undershorts outside Wimbledon before the women's final.
3. Sep 2022West Bromwich Albion Women switch to navy shorts.
4. Nov 17, 2022Wimbledon announces that women may wear mid- or dark-colored undershorts from 2023.
5. Apr 5, 2023England say their women will wear blue shorts at the 2023 World Cup.
6. Jul 2023Players wear dark undershorts at Wimbledon for the first time.

The ethical issues

• Whether tradition justifies rules that cause anxiety for some athletes.
• How dress codes affect women differently from men.
• Who should be consulted when uniform rules change.
• Breaking the silence around menstruation in sport.
• Effects of kit rules on girls' participation.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Women and girl players	Comfort, health and dignity while competing.
The All England Club	Its traditions and brand identity.
Clubs and national teams	Kit identity and player welfare.
Kit manufacturers and sponsors	Design, colors and marketing.
Campaigners	Changing norms around periods in sport.
Teenage girls	Staying in sport without fear or embarrassment.

The case

For generations, players at Wimbledon have worn white. The rule is part of the championships’ identity, and the All England Club enforces it strictly, down to undergarments. For women, it carried a burden that was rarely spoken about: the fear of playing on a world stage, in white, while having a period. In 2022 players and campaigners made that fear public. Within months Wimbledon changed its rules, and football clubs and national teams began changing their shorts. The case shows how a tradition can carry costs that fall on only some of those who follow it.

Background

In July 2022 a group called Address The Dress Code staged a protest outside the All England Club before the women’s final between Ons Jabeur and Elena Rybakina. Its members wore red undershorts beneath white skirts. One of the organisers said: “You can uphold tradition and still move with the times.”^[1] British player Alicia Barnett had spoken about the stress of white kit during periods, saying, “I do think some traditions could be changed.”^[1] In 2007 Tatiana Golovin had been asked to change after wearing red shorts under her skirt.^[1] A Wimbledon spokesperson said that “prioritising women’s health” was important and that it was in “discussions with the WTA, with manufacturers and with the medical teams.”^[1]

Other athletes described the strain. Olympic champion Monica Puig had spoken of the “mental stress” of having to wear white and said she used to pray the championships would not coincide with her period. Britain’s Heather Watson said: “It is absolutely something the players talk about around Wimbledon because of the all-whites … maybe not to the media but among ourselves, for sure.”^[3]

Research suggested the issue reached far beyond elite tennis. A 2022 study by the charity Women in Sport found that 43% of girls who had once considered themselves sporty disengaged from sport in their teens, compared with 24% of boys. About seven in ten girls said they avoided exercise during their periods, 62% said they feared leaking, and 45% said they felt self-conscious.^[5]

The rules and governance

Wimbledon’s dress code requires players to wear almost entirely white clothing, including anything visible during play. It is a tournament rule, not a sport-wide one, set by the All England Club’s committee of management. In football, kit colors are chosen by clubs and national associations, often with sponsors and manufacturers, within competition rules about color clashes.^[2][4]

Wimbledon changes the rule

On November 17, 2022, Wimbledon announced that from 2023, women and girls could wear mid- or dark-colored undershorts, as long as they were no longer than their shorts or skirt.^[3] Chief executive Sally Bolton said: “We are committed to supporting the players and listening to their feedback as to how they can perform at their best.” She added that the decision came “following consultation with players and representatives of several stakeholder groups,” and said: “It is our hope that this rule adjustment will help players focus purely on their performance by relieving a potential source of anxiety.”^[2] Requirements for other clothing were unchanged.^[2] Judy Murray and Billie Jean King had been among critics of the old rule.^[2]

Football follows

Football had begun moving too. West Bromwich Albion Women switched to navy shorts in September 2022, and Stoke City, Swansea and Manchester City introduced dark shorts for their women’s teams; Bristol City added red shorts to their home kit.^[2][3] Test cricketers also spoke of the anxiety of bleeding in their whites.^[3]

In April 2023 England announced that its women would wear blue shorts instead of white at that summer’s World Cup, with a leak-protection liner added after players’ feedback. Forward Lauren Hemp called it “a massive step in the right direction” and said Nike had taken a lot from players’ discussions. “You don’t just want your own team but everyone in the environment to feel safe and comfortable,” she said. Defender Niamh Charles said: “It’s massively progressive for the women’s game that we are now just talking about like it’s normal and we are OK to change things and not just saying get on with it.”^[4] New Zealand also swapped its white home shorts for blue. Striker Hannah Wilkinson said the change “shows a recognition and appreciation of women’s health.”^[4]

Aftermath

At Wimbledon in July 2023, players wore dark undershorts for the first time. Victoria Azarenka was among the first, and said she appreciated the change. Rybakina said it was “good to have an option.” Jabeur, while welcoming the choice, noted a catch: if only some players wore dark shorts, “everybody will know that you have your period,” adding, “If all the girls will wear it, I think it will make it better.”^[6] The all-white rule for the rest of players’ clothing remained.^[2]

The core dilemma

Wimbledon’s white kit is a tradition that is part of the tournament’s identity and brand. The rule applied equally to everyone, but its burden did not: women carried a hidden worry that men did not. Changing the rule meant giving up some uniformity; keeping it meant asking women to manage anxiety in silence. How should a sport weigh a valued tradition against the health, comfort and dignity of the athletes who follow it?

Competing values

• Tradition vs. welfare: a long-standing identity against athletes’ comfort and health.
• Formal equality vs. real equality: one rule for all against unequal effects on women.
• Brand identity vs. athlete voice: what the event and sponsors want against what players need.
• Privacy vs. openness: keeping periods private against normalizing them in public.

Strongest arguments

For changing the rules. A rule that causes anxiety for half of competitors, for reasons unrelated to fair play, fails a basic duty of care. The change was small, kept the look of white kit and was made after consultation. It also sent a message to girls, many of whom drop out of sport partly because of periods, that their needs count.

For keeping tradition, within limits. Traditions give events meaning, and Wimbledon’s white kit is part of its appeal. Some argued that players could manage with existing products, and that each exception invites more. Wimbledon’s choice of a narrow change, rather than abolishing the rule, reflects that view.

For going further. Jabeur’s point suggests that an optional change may not remove the problem, since wearing dark shorts could itself signal a period. A fuller solution might involve broader kit choices or normalizing dark shorts for all, so no player stands out.

Applying the frameworks

Care ethics

Care ethics centers on relationships and the needs of those affected. It asks whether the people who run the sport listened to the experiences of women players, who had long talked about the issue “among ourselves.” The 2022 changes came from listening and consultation, which care ethics would credit. The lens would also attend to young athletes, for whom fear of leaking can mean leaving sport altogether.

Rights

A rights lens asks whether rules treat athletes with equal respect. A rule that is neutral on paper can still impose an unequal burden, which the concept of rules-vs-spirit helps capture: the purpose of a dress code (a distinctive look) does not require women to accept anxiety. The lens supports athletes’ right to a say in rules about their bodies.

Utilitarian

A utilitarian would weigh the small loss of uniformity against the benefit of less anxiety for many players and the possible effect on girls’ participation. With low costs and real benefits, the balance favors change. It would also ask whether the change achieved its goal, given Jabeur’s concern about standing out.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You sit on a tournament committee reviewing the dress code. Stakeholders include women and men players, the club’s members, sponsors and manufacturers, broadcasters, fans and young players. The codes in play are the tournament’s clothing rules and its commitment to player welfare.
2. Gather facts. What do players say about the rule? What do medical teams advise? What do surveys show about girls and periods? Watch for tradition bias: a rule can seem essential simply because it is old.
3. Test options. Keep the rule; allow dark undershorts; allow a wider range of colors; or abolish the all-white requirement. Run each through care, fairness and consequences.
4. Check codes and law. Review the tournament’s rules, the tour’s welfare standards and equality principles. Ask whether the rule’s purpose can be met another way.
5. Decide and document. Explain the change and its reasons, as Wimbledon did after consulting players and stakeholder groups.
6. Communicate and follow up. Tell players clearly what is allowed, gather feedback after the next event and review whether the change has eased anxiety for those it was meant to help.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled

• Wimbledon has allowed women and girls to wear mid- or dark-colored undershorts since 2023, while keeping the all-white rule for other clothing.
• Several English clubs and England’s and New Zealand’s women’s teams dropped white shorts over period concerns.
• Women in Sport research found that many teenage girls avoid sport during their periods and fear leaking.

Contested

• Whether the narrow change goes far enough, or whether optional dark shorts can single out players.
• How much weight traditions and brand identity should carry against athlete welfare.
• Whether kit changes will measurably affect girls’ participation.

Why this case matters

The white-kit debate shows how a rule can look equal and still burden one group. It also shows that change often starts when athletes speak openly about something long kept private. For anyone designing rules in sport, the lesson is to ask who bears the cost of a tradition, and whether that cost is necessary. For a related case, see Norway’s Beach Handball Team and the Bikini Rule.

Key terms

Core values

The principles a sport organization says it stands for, most often safety, fairness, respect, integrity and transparency.

Rules vs. spirit of the game

Rules are the written minimum; the spirit is the fairness and respect the rules exist to protect. Rules set the floor; spirit sets the ceiling.

Duty of care

The responsibility of coaches, organizations and institutions to protect the health, safety and well-being of those in their charge. It is not a license for total control.

Stakeholders

Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Brand as ethical promise

A brand is more than a logo: it is a promise to stakeholders about values and conduct, and it is broken when actions contradict it.

Multiple points of view

Analyzing a dilemma from each stakeholder’s position in turn (athlete, parent, coach, administrator, official, bystander) before reaching your own reasoned view.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Was Wimbledon right to keep the all-white rule for most clothing while allowing dark undershorts?
2. Why might it have taken so long for athletes to raise this issue publicly?
3. Who should decide what athletes wear: governing bodies, teams, sponsors or players?
4. How might kit rules affect girls' decisions to stay in sport?
5. What other traditions in sport might place unequal burdens on women?

Sources

1. Protesters at Wimbledon urge end to all-white dress code due to period concerns — The Guardian
2. Wimbledon to allow dark undershorts due to female players' period concerns — The Guardian
3. Wimbledon: Female players allowed to wear dark undershorts after period concerns — BBC Sport
4. England at Women's World Cup: Lionesses to wear blue shorts over period concerns — BBC Sport
5. Tackling Teenage Disengagement: Executive Summary — Women in Sport
6. Wimbledon 2023: Women wear non-white undergarments for first time — Nine