Much like the men’s game, women’s hockey traces its roots back more than a century. While its first IIHF World Championship wasn’t held until 1990, its Olympic debut came in 1998, and its first truly sustainable professional league only arrived in 2024, the women’s game has a rich and remarkable history that deserves recognition at the highest level.

That highest level is the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Yet despite that history, only 15 women have been inducted as players, even though as many as 32 could have been elected under the Hall’s rules.

Just last week, American pioneer Cindy Curley was the lone player selected by the Hall’s 18-member Selection Committee.

To understand why, you first need to understand how the Hockey Hall of Fame’s selection process works.

Each year, the 18-member Selection Committee meets virtually twice before members submit their nominations by April 15. Every committee member nominates one player (male or female), one builder, and one referee or linesperson.

The committee then gathers in person in June, where members present their candidates and make the case for why they deserve induction.

While every committee member receives background material on each nominee, the discussion and advocacy during the June meeting remain an important part of the process.

Following those discussions, the voting begins. Ballots are secret, and a candidate must receive at least 75 percent of the vote—14 of the 18 committee members—to be elected.

If the maximum number of inductees is not chosen on the first ballot, a series of run-off ballots follows. After each round, the lowest-performing candidates are eliminated, and voting continues until either all available induction spots are filled or a final ballot is reached. At that point, the process ends, even if some induction spots remain vacant.

A nomination is only valid for that year’s election. If no committee member nominates that player again the following year, the process starts over from scratch.

Unlike in baseball, where voters are free to publicly reveal their ballots, members of the Hockey Hall of Fame Selection Committee are bound by strict non-disclosure agreements. The 18 committee members are prohibited from disclosing whom they nominated, who was nominated by other members—even if that candidate is ultimately inducted—which candidates failed to make the Hall, or anything discussed during the selection process.

The Hall’s rules allow for the induction of up to four male players and two female players each year.

The problem, in my view, isn’t the number of available spots. It’s the process that determines who reaches those spots.

In 2026, the Selection Committee consisted of 16 men and just two women.

Those two women are Cammi Granato, who joined the committee in January 2022, and Cassie Campbell-Pascall, who has served since November 2018. Not only were they the only two women on this year’s committee, they are also the only two women ever appointed to it.

For the sake of illustration, let’s assume that each year Cassie Campbell-Pascall and Cammi Granato each nominate a female player. Perhaps another committee member or two does the same. Let’s also imagine that one of those candidates is France St-Louis.

A true pioneer of women’s hockey, St-Louis won five World Championship gold medals, captained Team Canada at two World Championships, and captured an Olympic silver medal at the age of 39. Representing Quebec, she was named Most Valuable Player at the National Championship five times. One of the sport’s trailblazers, few players did more to build the women's game, and many believe she should already be in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Yet, she isn’t.

According to the Hockey Hall of Fame, candidates are evaluated on their playing ability, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to both their teams and the game of hockey as a whole. Players must also have been retired from professional or international competition for at least three playing seasons before becoming eligible.

St-Louis checks every one of those boxes.

The committee member who nominated her would then have to convince the other 17 members that she deserves induction. She might find support among the committee’s four journalists, whose profession naturally involves researching and evaluating hockey history. Fellow Quebecer Luc Robitaille may also be familiar with her accomplishments.

But convincing everyone else becomes much more difficult.

Although the Hall intends for its committee to represent different eras and regions of hockey, that doesn’t necessarily mean every member is equally familiar with the history of women’s hockey.

How familiar are European members and former players such as Jari Kurri, Igor Larionov or Anders Hedberg with France St-Louis and her place in the history of women’s hockey?

It’s a fair question to ask.

The challenge is compounded by the lack of comprehensive statistics from the early decades of the women’s game. Outside of major international tournaments, reliable records are often incomplete or simply unavailable.

Even the international numbers don’t fully capture her impact. St-Louis finished her national team career with 28 points in 25 World Championship games, ranking 66th all-time. Judged on statistics alone, those are hardly the numbers that immediately stand out as Hall of Fame worthy.

Which is precisely why statistics cannot be the only—or even the primary—measure when evaluating pioneers of women’s hockey.

Finally, with only two women on the Selection Committee, it’s reasonable to assume that many members look to their knowledge and perspective when evaluating candidates from the women’s game. Now imagine that Granato and Campbell-Pascall simply don’t believe a particular player belongs among the strongest Hall of Fame candidates. Their assessment would naturally carry significant weight.

I’m not suggesting that either of them is anything less than professional. Quite the opposite.

But every evaluation process involves a degree of subjectivity. And when just two people are, in many respects, the committee’s primary experts on the history of women’s hockey, their opinions inevitably become highly influential in shaping the discussion.

That’s not a criticism of Granato or Campbell-Pascall. It’s simply a reflection of a system that asks two people to represent more than a century of women’s hockey history.

So, when only one woman is inducted, it doesn’t necessarily mean the committee believes no other candidate is Hall of Fame worthy. It may simply reflect that too few women’s candidates were nominated in the first place or that none of those nominated reached the required 75 percent threshold.

All of the above, in my view, helps explain why someone like France St-Louis is still waiting for induction, why there are years in which only one female player is elected despite two spots being available, and why such a significant backlog of deserving candidates has developed.

When the Hockey Hall of Fame was established in 1945, it wasted little time building its men’s wing. Across its first two induction classes, 25 male players were elected.

Women, meanwhile, were never formally excluded from the Hall of Fame. But in practice, they were competing against men for the same player spots. Realistically, they had little chance of being elected.

Recognizing that imbalance, the Hall changed its rules in 2010, creating up to two player induction spots reserved for women each year. Two women were inducted in that inaugural class. But with no women serving on the Selection Committee at the time, no female players were elected in either 2011 or 2012. From 2013 through 2017, only one female player was elected every other year, despite the Hall allowing for up to two female inductees annually.

Had the Hall taken the same approach with women’s hockey that it did with the men’s game—by inducting a large inaugural class of pioneers over the first year or two—many of today’s deserving candidates would likely already be in the Hall.

And players such as France St-Louis might not still be waiting.

Rest assured.

I didn’t write all of this simply to criticize the process. I also believe there is a realistic solution.

Why not create a separate Selection Committee dedicated to the women’s game?

First, let’s look at who could serve on such a committee.

For starters, there are the 15 women already enshrined in the Hockey Hall of Fame:

Jennifer Botterill, Cindy Curley, Natalie Darwitz, Brianna Decker, Danielle Goyette, Cammi Granato, Géraldine Heaney, Jayna Hefford, Angela James, Caroline Ouellette, Angela Ruggiero, Riika Sallinen, Kim St-Pierre, Krissy Wendell and Hayley Wickenheiser.

That group alone includes eight Canadians, six Americans and one Finn—players who competed against the very best of their respective eras and understand the evolution of the women’s game better than almost anyone.

You could also add Hall of Fame builder Danièle Sauvageau, along with Cassie Campbell-Pascall, who, despite not yet being inducted herself, is one of the most respected voices in women’s hockey and already serves on the current Selection Committee.

The remaining seats could easily be filled by journalists and historians who have spent decades covering, documenting and preserving the history of the women’s game.

In other words, assembling an 18-member committee with the expertise needed to evaluate women’s hockey history wouldn’t be difficult at all.

I don’t even mind keeping the limit at two female player inductees per year. Although, in the inaugural year of a dedicated women’s Selection Committee, the Hall could seize the opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past by electing a larger class of deserving pioneers.

After that, however, with up to 18 different women’s candidates being nominated each year, the Hall would be far more likely to fill both available player spots on a consistent basis. It would also give women’s builders—and eventually referees and lineswomen—a much better chance of being recognized.

A dedicated women’s committee would also reduce the possibility of unconscious bias. Instead of having just two women guiding much of the discussion around the women’s game, you would have 18 committee members, each bringing their own experience, expertise and perspective to the table.

I truly believe this is the best way to ensure that more deserving women are inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame and to address the growing backlog of worthy candidates who may otherwise never receive the recognition they deserve.

As we approach the 20th anniversary of Angela James and Cammi Granato becoming the first women inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame, 2030 would be a fitting time to make that change.

The Hall changed once to recognize women’s hockey. Now it’s time to ensure that recognition truly works.