Womens League is needed ASAP

[jatz14]

I would think people beleive no one will watch because no one watches now. No one turns up to local footy games of womens football. No one turned up to see them play at the mcg either

No one watches mens suburban footy, why would they watch womens? The Melbourne game was a meaningless exhibition game. It had a lot of meaning to the players, and to people interested in establishing a womens comp, but they are not real teams, it is not a real comp, there are no points, there is not cup.

 

[FRUMPY]

No one watches mens suburban footy, why would they watch womens? The Melbourne game was a meaningless exhibition game. It had a lot of meaning to the players, and to people interested in establishing a womens comp, but they are not real teams, it is not a real comp, there are no points, there is not cup.

Suburban footballers also do not think we deserve a national competition for suburban footballers. then a one-off match for fans of women's football who want the AFL to create a national competition and no-one turns up. goes to show there is not the market/want for it. Nothing wrong with the VWFL and other state leagues to improve their brand and start generating their own fanbases before setting up a comp that is destined to fail and put womens footy back more than what it is now.

 

[MarkT2]

No one watches male hockey players either. It is not a very watchable sport. I think you underestimate netball crowds.
Edit http://www.smh.com.au/sport/netball/netball-crowds-get-jump-on-rugby-league-20140611-39wh4.html
Push to move netball to bigger stadiums as they are filling the smaller ones they play in. Teams like the Swifts outdraw the NRL.

Question is, why did you assume one of the highest attended sports comps in Australia wasn't watched by anyone?

Is it because it is a womens sport you are not interested in, therefore you assume no one else is either.

I suspect womens AFL will be the same. You will be thinking, what rubbish, no one wants to watch, meanwhile..

Fair point about male hockey. Women's cricket and soccer don't get crowds though and those are popular male sports. Nor can they get a TV deal.

I've been to the netball through a connection with a sponsor. The crowds are ok but they are preaching to the converted. You only need to listen to the crowd noise on TV to see the demographics. Still, they do get people along and they do get a TV deal.

As for women's Aust. rules, I can't see it out performing VFL/SANFL/WAFL and they are marginal comps. at best. Take out the AFL connections and they would barley be able to sustain any sort of professional status for most players/coaches.

My assumption is frankly partly due to the status of women's sport but also due to the status of any non top level sport. We probably have the best standard domestic cricket comp in the world and no one watches it. The Foxtel Cup was a failure. In theory that should be the second best Australian Rules comp in the country.

 

[The_Reaper]

No one watches mens suburban footy, why would they watch womens? The Melbourne game was a meaningless exhibition game. It had a lot of meaning to the players, and to people interested in establishing a womens comp, but they are not real teams, it is not a real comp, there are no points, there is not cup.

You haven't answered my question as to why an annual SOO competition couldn't serve the role of letting the best female players play the best female players nation wide

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Cricket has had a women's league for ages (believe it or not) but looks to be trying to raise it to a new level next season and align itself with the Big Bash

Article

In an announcement released today, it was confirmed the proposed 2015 Women’s Big Bash League will feature franchises aligned with the current men’s competition - with the new franchises adopting the same colours and team name.

“We want cricket to be the number one sport for girls and women in Australia and we believe that the WBBL can assist this goal by creating an inspiring visible pathway for the next generation of players, fans and volunteers.

“Aligning the WBBL brands with the BBL brands will help cricket to appeal to a broader audience and gain greater exposure.”

“With the introduction of a WBBL, we want young girls to be able to dream about growing up and following in their footsteps.”

The way I can see it working is if AFL clubs have to apply for a licence. Perhaps offer up six licenses around the nation. Some clubs won't be interested. Others may see it as a way to gain extra exposure/community goodwill. Same colours, same training venues as the AFL clubs that take it on. All the infrastructure is already there. It would only need to be a very short competition like the Big Bash which would keep costs down. Something like five rounds and a final. The competition could be centred around the bye weekends when there are fewer men's games so perhaps a bit of space in the schedule.

 

[Starburns_]

Could it work in the offseason, obviosuly ground availablity becomes a concern but it's not like it needs to be at the MCG.

Would be competing with cricket and soccer for female players, but the attention could be there from a footy-starved fanbase.

Fair point about male hockey. Women's cricket and soccer don't get crowds though and those are popular male sports. Nor can they get a TV deal.

The TV deal aspect shouldn't be that big of a problem for the AFL if they got some clean air for the women's games (either before AFL on Saturday and Sunday, Sunday night, or even occasional midweek night matches). It's finding the money and the sponsors that stop it being a complete money pit that is the greater concern.

My assumption is frankly partly due to the status of women's sport but also due to the status of any non top level sport. We probably have the best standard domestic cricket comp in the world and no one watches it. The Foxtel Cup was a failure. In theory that should be the second best Australian Rules comp in the country.

Foxtel Cup is a good comparison, the competition should've worked, but it didn't, even after they started playing it on Tuesday nights.

The way I can see it working is if AFL clubs have to apply for a licence. Perhaps offer up six licenses around the nation. Some clubs won't be interested. Others may see it as a way to gain extra exposure/community goodwill. Same colours, same training venues as the AFL clubs that take it on. All the infrastructure is already there. It would only need to be a very short competition like the Big Bash which would keep costs down. Something like five rounds and a final. The competition could be centred around the bye weekends when there are fewer men's games so perhaps a bit of space in the schedule.

And if Port won the SA license and the Crows didn't, would you watch?

Alignments wouldn't work, too many fans would get frozen out before it began. Generic 'franchises' are the only option, and at least then the competition will have to sink or swim on its own merits.

Basically every other national competition aside from the NRL in this country (BBL, NBL, A-League, Netball) are franchise based comps, there's no reason the AFL couldn't have that in a women's league.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

And if Port won the SA license and the Crows didn't, would you watch?

There won't be 18 teams, particularly not initially. Half the SA fan base is better than zero of the SA fan base.

Alignments wouldn't work, too many fans would get frozen out before it began. Generic 'franchises' are the only option, and at least then the competition will have to sink or swim on its own merits.

Generic franchises would be a disaster given that there isn't a high level of interest in women's football. The only way is to piggy back on existing franchises. Starting from scratch in a market place that is already crowded and doing it with an unpopular product would be the height of dumb.

Basically every other national competition aside from the NRL in this country (BBL, NBL, A-League, Netball) are franchise based comps, there's no reason the AFL couldn't have that in a women's league.

Seven of the eight women's soccer teams are affiliated with A-League clubs (the Canberra team isn't). It's the only way to do it.

 

[Starburns_]

There won't be 18 teams, particularly not initially. Half the SA fan base is better than zero of the SA fan base.

Of course there won't be 18, there'll never be the money or the inclination. That doesn't even take into account the over-representation of Melbourne teams.

Alignment doesn't guarantee a supporter base, there will still be those who don't watch simply because it's women's football. Regardless of what you name the team, people won't just start paying attention overnight (Bulldogs vs Melbourne is testament to that), so why not take advantage of the inevitable short term pain by picking the longer term option, instead of shutting out half of a potential fan base before even beginning.

Generic franchises would be a disaster given that there isn't a high level of interest in women's football. The only way is to piggy back on existing franchises. Starting from scratch in a market place that is already crowded and doing it with an unpopular product would be the height of dumb.

You pretty much just described GWS.

Seven of the eight women's soccer teams are affiliated with A-League clubs (the Canberra team isn't). It's the only way to do it.

And all the A-League clubs are franchises anyway...

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Of course there won't be 18, there'll never be the money or the inclination. That doesn't even take into account the over-representation of Melbourne teams.

Alignment doesn't guarantee a supporter base, there will still be those who don't watch simply because it's women's football. Regardless of what you name the team, people won't just start paying attention overnight (Bulldogs vs Melbourne is testament to that), so why not take advantage of the inevitable short term pain by picking the longer term option, instead of shutting out half of a potential fan base before even beginning.

What is certain is that the Adelaide Aardvarks would have absolutely zero traction. Aligning with an existing club at least gives a leg up. After a trial of a year or two they'll see if there is any value in it, offer more licenses, disband the comp... see whether it is something worth progressing with it. Just need a few clubs to test the waters first.

And all the A-League clubs are franchises anyway...

Yep, and aligning the women's teams to the men's franchises rather than creating their own brand new entities is the only way to do it

 

[The_Reaper]

Why does the womens league have to be linked to the current clubs in the AFL?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Why does the womens league have to be linked to the current clubs in the AFL?

It doesn't, it would be just be better if they were.

That way there are already established colours and names, training venue, training facilities, medical facilities, medical staff, offices, website, marketing department, media team etc.

Starting on their own without this infrastructure around them would be impossible.

 

[Starburns_]

What is certain is that the Adelaide Aardvarks would have absolutely zero traction. Aligning with an existing club at least gives a leg up. After a trial of a year or two they'll see if there is any value in it, offer more licenses, disband the comp... see whether it is something worth progressing with it. Just need a few clubs to test the waters first.

Except that theoretically the 'Adelaide Aardvarks' would be a literal 'team for all South Australians'. A lack of official alignment doesn't mean putting them out on their own, it would mean splitting between the Crows and Power, curtain raisers played before both teams play, cross-promotional stuff rotating between both, etc.

As for the bolded, even if it was Collingwood, Hawthorn, West Coast, Adelaide, Sydney, and Brisbane, they're not going to get much value as there's f*** all scope to grow the competition within even those clubs.

Yep, and aligning the women's teams to the men's franchises rather than creating their own brand new entities is the only way to do it

Except that it isn't when you're going to be putting out probably 1/3 of the existing teams in the men's competition.

 

[The_Reaper]

It doesn't, it would be just be better if they were.

That way there are already established colours and names, training venue, training facilities, medical facilities, medical staff, offices, website, marketing department, media team etc.

Starting on their own without this infrastructure around them would be impossible.

Or you could just link it to states.

The national U18s seems to cope without getting linked to clubs

 

[jatz14]

You haven't answered my question as to why an annual SOO competition couldn't serve the role of letting the best female players play the best female players nation wide

1 game a year of make up invitation teams, verse a weekly national comp with established teams. They are not even remotely the same. Why didn't the state mens league not just continue with SOO, and give the national AFL the flick.

 

[The_Reaper]

1 game a year of make up invitation teams, verse a weekly national comp with established teams. They are not even remotely the same. Why didn't the state mens league not just continue with SOO, and give the national AFL the flick.

Not really?
Make it 6 states + VIC Country that is 6 games maybe 12 a year.

Make it the first step and televise it and see what the interest is like before going on a big jump.

Would give female players the opportunity to play the best around the country as well.

 

[jatz14]

Fair point about male hockey. Women's cricket and soccer don't get crowds though and those are popular male sports. Nor can they get a TV deal.

I've been to the netball through a connection with a sponsor. The crowds are ok but they are preaching to the converted. You only need to listen to the crowd noise on TV to see the demographics. Still, they do get people along and they do get a TV deal.

As for women's Aust. rules, I can't see it out performing VFL/SANFL/WAFL and they are marginal comps. at best. Take out the AFL connections and they would barley be able to sustain any sort of professional status for most players/coaches.

My assumption is frankly partly due to the status of women's sport but also due to the status of any non top level sport. We probably have the best standard domestic cricket comp in the world and no one watches it. The Foxtel Cup was a failure. In theory that should be the second best Australian Rules comp in the country.

That is the issue, it is second best, and only real fans will watch second best. Those people that see womens as being second (or fourth or tenth) best footy, will not watch, but those that see it as best womens footy, will.

I do not watch the womens AFL games and see a game that is inferior to mens AFL, I see a game that is superior to womens suburban footy. It is a bit like saying Usain Bolt is really slow, if you compare him to a greyhound, therefore why bother to watch?

 

[jatz14]

My guess at how they proceed, is add a third team next year, and play a 3 game round robin. Then assess available talent, see how thin the third team spread the talent, then expand again to a prototype 4 league team 2017, then expand out to a fixed comp in 2020. If it is to thin after 2016, then hold for a couple of years, and try 2018 or 2019 to expand.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Except that theoretically the 'Adelaide Aardvarks' would be a literal 'team for all South Australians'. A lack of official alignment doesn't mean putting them out on their own, it would mean splitting between the Crows and Power, curtain raisers played before both teams play, cross-promotional stuff rotating between both, etc.

As for the bolded, even if it was Collingwood, Hawthorn, West Coast, Adelaide, Sydney, and Brisbane, they're not going to get much value as there's f*** all scope to grow the competition within even those clubs.

How is there not scope to grow the competition? More teams, more games, more crowds, more players, more on tv...?

Whether women's AFL would be successful (whatever the model) I don't know.

If women's basketball and soccer is big in the USA I don't see why women's AFL cannot be popular here. People watch women's tennis and golf. Those sports pay for themselves and exist alongside the men's competitions. Not because the players are as good but because they have become legitimate sports in their own right.

One of the mysteries to me is how netball can be the highest participation sport in the country yet get meager tv ratings and just average attendances. Why every girl who plays netball isn't glued to the screen every time the Thunderbirds or Phoenix play I cannot understand. I can't believe it is because girls aren't as passionate about sport. Half the attendees at AFL games are female. I don't think netball is a great game to watch and maybe that's one of the reasons but we know AFL is.

I know a few female athletes who play various sports at a state and national level. It is slowly changing but some still have to pay their own way for interstate trips, take annual leave etc. Women's sport is still very amateur in nature. They are starting to get paid as professionals in netball, soccer and now cricket. Only nominal amounts at the moment as they don't generate the sponsorship, television, crowds to provide any real funds. But you'd think this will grow in time and the sports that position themselves cleverly now will be the ones that gain any benefit down the track.

Talented athletes can pick up pretty much any sport, especially as kids. Females would naturally gravitate towards a sport where there is a career pathway given that so many female sports don't.

Someone earlier in this thread nailed the other reason why all sporting bodies are looking at female competitions and programs. The mums are the decision makers and there is research that says females who play a sport (even at a social level) as kids think more fondly of that game when they are adults and are more likely to encourage their children to take up the game. And the reverse is true.

All sports want to be accessible to everybody. None are just sitting back farming their historical pastures.

Except that it isn't when you're going to be putting out probably 1/3 of the existing teams in the men's competition.

I'm not sure why you keep saying this? There's not going to be 18 teams. There would need to be a decent amount of money invested by the AFL to get even something small up and running. Costs for running six teams would be significant. 18 teams would be exorbitant. Costs if linked to existing clubs would be significant. Creating new stand alone clubs it would be exorbitant.

Might only get half the SA fan base? There won't be many fans initially, no matter what the teams are. You're not 'freezing out' anyone.

Year 1 no one will go, no one will watch. So you may as well at least have a support structure around you.

 

[DrEvil_]

Wouldn't watch.

You wouldn't watch young fit women running around in tight shorts? Really?

 

[DrEvil_]

I'll be filthy if there is no Melbourne team. Dees have put in most of the hard work to get this thing off the ground. Doggies do too for similar effort.

You guys even groomed Jack Watts for the inaugural captain.

 

[Starburns_]

How is there not scope to grow the competition? More teams, more games, more crowds, more players, more on tv...?

Because by limiting it to select existing clubs, you cap the amount of existing football fans you'll attract.

If women's basketball and soccer is big in the USA I don't see why women's AFL cannot be popular here. People watch women's tennis and golf. Those sports pay for themselves and exist alongside the men's competitions. Not because the players are as good but because they have become legitimate sports in their own right.

Women's basketball and soccer aren't big in the USA, they're niche, but they are pretty well funded all the same (in college sports that stems from title IX).

One of the mysteries to me is how netball can be the highest participation sport in the country yet get meager tv ratings and just average attendances. Why every girl who plays netball isn't glued to the screen every time the Thunderbirds or Phoenix play I cannot understand. I can't believe it is because girls aren't as passionate about sport. Half the attendees at AFL games are female. I don't think netball is a great game to watch and maybe that's one of the reasons but we know AFL is.

I know a few female athletes who play various sports at a state and national level. It is slowly changing but some still have to pay their own way for interstate trips, take annual leave etc. Women's sport is still very amateur in nature. They are starting to get paid as professionals in netball, soccer and now cricket. Only nominal amounts at the moment as they don't generate the sponsorship, television, crowds to provide any real funds. But you'd think this will grow in time and the sports that position themselves cleverly now will be the ones that gain any benefit down the track.

Talented athletes can pick up pretty much any sport, especially as kids. Females would naturally gravitate towards a sport where there is a career pathway given that so many female sports don't.

Someone earlier in this thread nailed the other reason why all sporting bodies are looking at female competitions and programs. The mums are the decision makers and there is research that says females who play a sport (even at a social level) as kids think more fondly of that game when they are adults and are more likely to encourage their children to take up the game. And the reverse is true.

All sports want to be accessible to everybody. None are just sitting back farming their historical pastures.

Same reason soccer has big participation numbers in this country but overall a poor share of spectators/consumers. Converting participants into fans isn't an automatic thing, sometimes people will just play what's available to them, even if it's not what they enjoy most.

This reasoning is why the AFL are pushing the 9s concept, football doesn't have that less intense, social setup to it that netball, basketball, soccer, and tennis all have. They're looking to boost those participation numbers in the same way they are with women's football participation numbers, because there's a gap there with both. They may not get them though, because consuming doesn't automatically mean participation either.

Obviously the AFL is trying to provide a pathway for gifted female athletes to play the game, but regardless of whether this proposed league is successful, the fans aren't going to gravitate elsewhere just because they played another sport. There wasn't a women's pathway for over a century, yet look at the percentage of female fans in the AFL.

I'm not sure why you keep saying this? There's not going to be 18 teams. There would need to be a decent amount of money invested by the AFL to get even something small up and running. Costs for running six teams would be significant. 18 teams would be exorbitant. Costs if linked to existing clubs would be significant. Creating new stand alone clubs it would be exorbitant.

Might only get half the SA fan base? There won't be many fans initially, no matter what the teams are. You're not 'freezing out' anyone.

Year 1 no one will go, no one will watch. So you may as well at least have a support structure around you.

Of course I'm not saying 18 would happen or that it is a good idea, but existing alliances does freeze people out. If you start with the 6 I mentioned earlier, then Port and Freo supporters are out, as are Richmond, Essendon, Carlton, Geelong, etc. That's a lot of fans to be ignoring from the outset.

Sure, with expansion WA and SA could probably get their two teams aligned, but there's no hope of anything close to that in Victoria, and the Northern states really only sustain 1 out of the 4 AFL teams they currently have, there's hardly room for an equal number of women's teams there.

People cried that the re-launching of the BBL without state teams would be a disaster, but the league is better than it's ever been both financially and as a spectacle.

 

[eastfreo75]

Alot of those numbers are skewed - They are based on what teams the women play with locally. There are a host from QLD who moved to Melbourne to play in stronger leagues who were counted as being 'Victorian' for this match. Aasta O'Connor is the captain of the Bulldogs women's team, plays for the Darebin Falcomes locally, and get's counted as Victorian, but she's from Qld. She's not the only one like that who played

Can you give me a better percentages? Is there any SA girls playing in Victoria? Can Queensland have enough for two teams?

Love your thoughts.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Linked to AFL clubs would be good promotion for the women's teams and good for the culture of the AFL clubs.

 

[Eaglemaniac]

I am so tired of the demand for "more women" in any area once deemed a male domain. Why shouldn't the Footy Show be blokey and masculine? Footy is a game that was created by men and played by men. It's wonderful to have women playing the game if that's what they wish to do, and if a woman becomes a board member of a club because of her ability and dedication then good for her. But this constant urge to break down male bastions as though they are representative of all that is evil and depraved in our world is just ridiculous.

I might add that your typical accusation of inherent racism and sexism and white privilege are absolutely rubbish and the very fact you use the term "white" in your accusations is racist. Do you believe racism is a uniquely white male problem? The Footy Show has raised millions of dollars for breast-) cancer research led by one of the blokiest members of the show(Shane Crawford). Please alert me to any female dominated organisations who have raised millions of dollars for men's health issues. It seems, according to you, women are the perfect remedy for "fixing" inherent racism and sexism. Although it seems judging by a number of well publicised verbal assaults on ethnic minorities by angry women on pubic transport one could be led to a different opinion on the sanctity of the female. I'd like some concrete examples of the girls looking beyond their own self interest. Men (be it sporting clubs) or businesses do it all the time. My local footy club raised thousands for breast cancer just last week. I'm not sure what the local netball club did.

Are you demanding more men in women's netball, primary school teaching and nursing? When women gather together in these environments it is like being at a Hen's night. As long as we have women cackling about the male anatomy or sharing stories about their women's health issues, men are going to be pushed back and be less inclined to want to be a part of these sports and professions. Remove the girl's night mentality and things will change.

I wrote an article on this very subject after Clementine Ford complained about the growing number of male netball teams-something she sees as a negative and unwanted whilst at the same time demanding female infiltration into domains created by and for males.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/another-clementine-whine/

Clementine Ford is a terrible journalist, and often overlooks double standards that work in women's favour while spouting rubbish. You must realise though that all men are evil, unnecessary and everything we do and say is wrong.

 

[The 747]

TBH I would watch it, if they put a game on TV. But then I watch most football pretty happily.