Play Nice AFL Womens - General Discussion

[The_Wookie]

$72,000 per annum is a decent average wage for a female team sport. It will take a while for the AFL Women's to reach that sort of level, but that should be the aim.

its also a bit of a crock. That $72,000 is for internationals only - state and WBBL players will be on a lot less - just like it is in the mens game where international players get millions. So you're looking at maybe 20 players on international contracts who will get that - and more if they are senior squad members.

The AFL has to cater for 30 players across probably 12 teams next year in the CBA - probably double what the cricket deal covers for their women and several times what netball does for theirs.

 

[BringBackTorps]

Its really hard to compare as the structure of cricket is totally different to football. Also, the new deal stipulates the player pool, but I do not think it is yet big on detail. The actual contracts haven't been written yet. Cricket also has the international component, I am not sure what, if anything Cricket Australia got out of the recent womens ICC in England, however the players still need to be paid.
Edit: That the player pool has had an eight fold increase is an indication.

This is the element that shows up the argument of people saying female footballers shouldn't be paid, as the league doesn't make a profit yet. If CA sends the Australian womens team on a tour, and that tour is not going to make Australian cricket any money. CA would be laughed at if they said this team, which they would expect to represent Australia professionally, was not going to be paid. Likewise, the idea that a club like Collingwood, or Carlton, expecting female players to represent their brand in a professional and competitive manner, could then say, but as they are not making a profit, we will not pay them, is ludicrous. Note that I am not suggesting these clubs would not pay them, I suspect they would pay more if not constrained by the cap.

Something is being worked out in the system of big professional team sport in Australia, and that is the value of womens comps to these sports, and the appropriate pay to represent that value, and its important to note that the value is only very loosely tied to revenue. I think no one really has a clear understanding of what that value is, or how to base pay on it.

One way to guess at a value is to imagine a hypothetical 7 or 8 years down the track. The AFLW has continued to grow, and keeps getting respectable ratings and crowds, an increased number of teams, and a regular and prominent place in the media cycle, ditto womens cricket, with regular TV coverage of womens internationals and tournaments. Lets also pretend the FFA has got of its arse and started really promoting the W-league and the Matildas. However, poor old League has dragged its feet and still does not have a high standard national professional womens comp, while womens AFL is spreading through NSW and Qld. What does this cost the NRL, in terms of image, profile, public perception, marketability, grass roots etc. How long until commercial sponsors start demanding a womens comp (if they haven't already).

I think there is zero possibility the NRL do not have something up well before then, because I am betting they have already pondered this hypothetical, and do not like the outcome. What would they be willing to spend to prevent this outcome? That is an approximate measure of that comps value.

You are also right to suggest competitive tension could play a big part in setting that level. Ironically, I wouldn't be surprised at overshoot, that competition between the sports for primacy in female sport, and a lack of clear valuation leads to them being paid overs.

WOW... 8x $ increase for female cricketers' TPP! $11,000,000 pa TPP (& less players cf AFLW)! A very big benchmark. Anyone know the average crowds for stand alone (ie not preceding BBL etc) women's BBL & test cricket; & ratings?

Your comments on the STRATEGIC value of a thriving, national women's comp. are prescient -for AF GR, & long term health of the sport. Females, 50% of the population & female players ignored/discouraged/mocked by AF state authorities & the AFL from 1919 to 2012.

In 2019, if the AFL wants to attract the most athletic females (which must be its goal), it will have to pay some good coin -&, as a MINIMUM, on the net commercial value of the media rights.

A PR problem the AFL might have is that there are already some grumblings from men's semi-prof. comps -who only make unfavourable comparisons on the AFLW skill levels. They don't "appreciate" the AFLW's ratings/crowds, & long term strategic benefits. Very few male primary teachers now, cf.1970's, which hurts AF school nos. & greatly assists soccer. Female teachers know soccer is much easier to teach & umpire - & is "much safer" for kids. Ditto, c.23% of kids now in single parent homes, nearly always headed by their mother- cf. 5% in the 70's.

I expect in 2018, the AFLW will get more prime TV timeslots &, hopefully, not played concurrently with JLT games - thus much better ratings/crowds; & in Syd. & Brisbane, the flat (ie very poor sight lines) suburban venues abandoned.
As the standard increases, more goals kicked etc, AFLW "credibility", support, & crowds will grow considerably. In 2019, 10 teams, perhaps start the comp.in early Jan., & have a proper Final's series. For the footy-starved public, playing at ol'time footy grounds (& sell full strength beer!) the AFLW will definitely boom again. Vic. Park games will be at capacity, c.17,000 if Coll. FC are more competitive, Hope can kick goals.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Where does all this money come from if the players are not generating much of it? Crickets has come from the war chest but very few watch women's cricket. Do they have an entry fee for women's cricket or is it free like the AFLW?
Quite staggering to me the money being poured into all this.

 

[Kwality]

$300,000 to the top girls:
MEG Lanning and Ellyse Perry are set to pocket up to $300,000 a season as part of a historic pay bonanza which cements cricket as the unrivalled leaders in women’s sport.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/to...l/news-story/8119f0d66fa8716add9b39be068407d5

 

[Teen Wolf]

Do they have an entry fee for women's cricket or is it free like the AFLW?

WBBL and international matches are generally free, other than the occasional fixture that comes bundled with the men's. Women's World Cup just gone would've had admission fees, but no idea how much.

 

[Kwality]

No entry fee is the elephant in the room for AFLW - netball & basketball pull paying fans?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

No entry fee is the elephant in the room for AFLW - netball & basketball pull paying fans?

I think it is the right way to go for the first few years but when the time comes for the women to demand much higher money then the AFL need to tell them they have to generate some of it by paying public. It's all good and well to say it's part because of the TV rights but I don't see channels 9 and 10 banging down the door to be a part of it. That may happen in time though.

 

[Teen Wolf]

"Elephant in the room is an English-language metaphorical idiom for an obvious problem or risk no one wants to discuss, or a condition of groupthink no one wants to challenge".

AFLW entry fees have been discussed (and acknowledged as a clear area of improvement) at length--in this thread, board, forum, and in interviews with various AFL figureheads and spokespersons. If you don't know what the strategy is, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Kwality]

"Elephant in the room is an English-language metaphorical idiom for an obvious problem or risk no one wants to discuss, or a condition of groupthink no one wants to challenge".

AFLW entry fees have been discussed (and acknowledged as a clear area of improvement) at length--in this thread, board, forum, and in interviews with various AFL figureheads and spokespersons. If you don't know what the strategy is, you haven't been paying attention.

Having a strategy does nothing to deny the problem - some sports can pull a paying audience, some cant, think the theatre, amateur theatre / off Broadway.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Having a strategy does nothing to deny the problem - some sports can pull a paying audience, some cant, think the theatre, amateur theatre / off Broadway.

And your post does nothing to deny my point: The problem is being discussed and ideas about solving it are being challenged, so it's false to say that process isn't happening.

 

[Kwality]

And your post does nothing to deny my point: The problem is being discussed and ideas about solving it are being challenged, so it's false to say that process isn't happening.

Happy for you. NOW the likes of Meg Lanning are pulling $300k, it puts a sharp point on where the money comes from & NO, I'm not criticising paying the money.

 

[jatz14]

Having a strategy does nothing to deny the problem - some sports can pull a paying audience, some cant, think the theatre, amateur theatre / off Broadway.

You seem hung up on gate fees. No Broadway show starts with its first 2 seasons free, that alone should tell you the analogy is false.

Also, when fees are introduced, they are not going to be $50 tickets, they are not going from free, to so high it keeps people away.

The determining factor of gate fees now (obviously) is not profitability, what makes you think when they do first start charging, it will be any sort of determining factor.

Cricket makes a cash loss from women's cricket, and it just agreed to a deal that sees pay go up for female cricketers by $50 mill !!.

Here is my prediction for you, in 2 years time, pay for AFLW players will go up quite a lot, and what the games are making at the gate will have nothing to do with it, because it's not the elephant in the room, it's the elephant in your head.


Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You seem hung up on gate fees. No Broadway show starts with its first 2 seasons free, that alone should tell you the analogy is false.

Also, when fees are introduced, they are not going to be $50 tickets, they are not going from free, to so high it keeps people away.

The determining factor of gate fees now (obviously) is not profitability, what makes you think when they do first start charging, it will be any sort of determining factor.

Cricket makes a cash loss from women's cricket, and it just agreed to a deal that sees pay go up for female cricketers by $50 mill !!.

Here is my prediction for you, in 2 years time, pay for AFLW players will go up quite a lot, and what the games are making at the gate will have nothing to do with it, because it's not the elephant in the room, it's the elephant in your head.


Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

If it's not the supporter base that drives more money what will be the justification of more money? Serious question Jatz.

 

[Kwality]

You seem hung up on gate fees. No Broadway show starts with its first 2 seasons free, that alone should tell you the analogy is false.

Also, when fees are introduced, they are not going to be $50 tickets, they are not going from free, to so high it keeps people away.

The determining factor of gate fees now (obviously) is not profitability, what makes you think when they do first start charging, it will be any sort of determining factor.

Cricket makes a cash loss from women's cricket, and it just agreed to a deal that sees pay go up for female cricketers by $50 mill !!.

Here is my prediction for you, in 2 years time, pay for AFLW players will go up quite a lot, and what the games are making at the gate will have nothing to do with it, because it's not the elephant in the room, it's the elephant in your head.


Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

AFL footy is the Broadway equivalent, my analogy was amateur theatre & off Broadway .... the show goes on, the question is whether or not you get paid, & if you do, how much. More $s you say.

 

[jatz14]

If it's not the supporter base that drives more money what will be the justification of more money? Serious question Jatz.

Its the value the AFL sees in having a big presence in women's sport.

Business engages in activities that do not make a profit all the time.

They do them for marketing and image reasons. For reasons of reputation.

They do it because it's something their customer base values, and helps make sure those customers stay customers using the products that do make a profit.

They do it as part of an expansion phase.

They do it to undercut rivals and to generate market share.

They do it to protect market share.

They do it when entering emerging markets or new areas of opportunity.

How many of those boxes does the women's comp tick?

Sponsors are already getting in the ear of clubs that do not have women's teams saying that they need to get one.

They need to shore up junior boys numbers, and getting girls into clubs helps.

They want to expand into Qld and NSW, but male sport in those states is entrenched, progress is slow and expensive, female sport is less settled.

There was images of a league player on the ground at a Swans game recently, because his daughter was in the Auskick.

What would the AFL pay for this?

If you think that the AFL will only pay female players if it is at no net cost, then you are arguing that these things have no value to the AFL.

What cost they are willing to bear depends on how much they value them, what the opportunity costs are, which is hard to tell from outside.

The AFL would love the AFLW to generate enough cash to pay for it all, and make a profit, but if it doesn't, they are not going to cut it back just to balance the books.

Some of the players are defacto full time footballers in that they still have second jobs, but those jobs are with the club's.

I think the AFL will want this to be formalised into full time positions, so they can point to a pathway to being a fully professional footballer. Think this will take maybe 3 years, with the bulk getting something like the marquee players do now, in the 20 - 30 K range.

I also think the AFLPA will have a lot to do with this, I predict they will become more militant on women's pay.










Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[jatz14]

AFL footy is the Broadway equivalent, my analogy was amateur theatre & off Broadway .... the show goes on, the question is whether or not you get paid, & if you do, how much. More $s you say.

The analogy here would be a professional theatre company trying to put on a professional show in its name, but not paying the actors because it doesn't think the show will make money.

Not how it works, if you think it will not make money, and it will not cover wages, do not put it on.

If you do put it on, and it does not cover wages, then the wages come out of your pocket. This is why Broadway can send people broke.

If the AFL cannot pay, don't have the comp. If they have the comp, then they pay.


Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Its the value the AFL sees in having a big presence in women's sport.

Business engages in activities that do not make a profit all the time.

They do them for marketing and image reasons. For reasons of reputation.

They do it because it's something their customer base values, and helps make sure those customers stay customers using the products that do make a profit.

They do it as part of an expansion phase.

They do it to undercut rivals and to generate market share.

They do it to protect market share.

They do it when entering emerging markets or new areas of opportunity.

How many of those boxes does the women's comp tick?

Sponsors are already getting in the ear of clubs that do not have women's teams saying that they need to get one.

They need to shore up junior boys numbers, and getting girls into clubs helps.

They want to expand into Qld and NSW, but male sport in those states is entrenched, progress is slow and expensive, female sport is less settled.

There was images of a league player on the ground at a Swans game recently, because his daughter was in the Auskick.

What would the AFL pay for this?

If you think that the AFL will only pay female players if it is at no net cost, then you are arguing that these things have no value to the AFL.

What cost they are willing to bear depends on how much they value them, what the opportunity costs are, which is hard to tell from outside.

The AFL would love the AFLW to generate enough cash to pay for it all, and make a profit, but if it doesn't, they are not going to cut it back just to balance the books.

Some of the players are defacto full time footballers in that they still have second jobs, but those jobs are with the club's.

I think the AFL will want this to be formalised into full time positions, so they can point to a pathway to being a fully professional footballer. Think this will take maybe 3 years, with the bulk getting something like the marquee players do now, in the 20 - 30 K range.

I also think the AFLPA will have a lot to do with this, I predict they will become more militant on women's pay.

You're also forgetting the number 1 argument that goes above all of these arguments: The AFL is the custodian of the game and has the financial capabilities to pay and provide professional playing opportunities for one half of the Australian population, equal to the men.

 

[TWLS]

They want to expand into Qld and NSW, but male sport in those states is entrenched, progress is slow and expensive, female sport is less settled.

Very good point - I keep an eye on the Rugby Codes Womens developments. They are not as advanced as Womens Soccer Football in those 2 states and also overall NSW is Soccer Football heartland. At one stage 40% of their participants overall were in NSW.
Both Rugby Codes have a National Team who compete regularly.
Womens Rugby Union is played in every state but numbers are not that high, but Rugby Sevens is boosting it, however the ARU management is appalling ATM.
Womens Rugby League is played in NSW and QLD and excluding Touch numbers are small but growing with the NRL getting serious.
The above scenario means that our Womens game up there has an opportunity to get established in the full contact footy vacuum with a solid base, which it should do if handled correctly.
History will record if we were "Just in time" or "Just too late" to get a really good base.

Will be interesting to watch to watch the Newcastle scenario before Rugby League get properly organised, however we do not generally have
"defectors" from our code. Once in they stay in.

 

[Gigantor]

I really don't see free entry to the ground as an issue at all.

The games I went to were full of young families and kids, enjoying a summer evening out, perhaps at an old VFL ground, they were family friendly fun events and it looked great on TV to have grounds full of people.

At a guess, I'd suggest that the sponsorship revenue the women's teams earned went very close to covering all costs in the first season - and a lot of that was earned before anyone knew how the season was going to go.

Some TV money will come in from 2019 onwards, and sponsorship already looks like it's going to continue to grow, not to mention what the higher profile women already earn being connected to footy, which is also going to grow.

Free entry is a complete non-issue, and you are kidding yourselves if you think women's salaries would grow on the back of introducing entry fees to games.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Very good point - I keep an eye on the Rugby Codes Womens developments. They are not as advanced as Womens Soccer Football in those 2 states and also overall NSW is Soccer Football heartland. At one stage 40% of their participants overall were in NSW.
Both Rugby Codes have a National Team who compete regularly.
Womens Rugby Union is played in every state but numbers are not that high, but Rugby Sevens is boosting it, however the ARU management is appalling ATM.
Womens Rugby League is played in NSW and QLD and excluding Touch numbers are small but growing with the NRL getting serious.
The above scenario means that our Womens game up there has an opportunity to get established in the full contact footy vacuum with a solid base, which it should do if handled correctly.
History will record if we were "Just in time" or "Just too late" to get a really good base.

Will be interesting to watch to watch the Newcastle scenario before Rugby League get properly organised, however we do not generally have
"defectors" from our code. Once in they stay in.

Not sure Newcastle ( Black Diamond) womens footy is a phenomenon, but pretty dam close.

15 teams apparently next year is pretty amazing, whatsmore a new mens club in the city built off the back of Newcastle city's second women's team.

 

[Garlic muncher]

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4652344/aussie-rules-makes-play-for-new-inner-city-club/

Black Diamond AFL: New club on agenda for Newcastle

“There is a demand around women’s football at the moment. We know that we could probably start a women’s team tomorrow if we wanted to. And certainly there’s plenty of demand for junior footy and Auskick.

“At a minimum, if we can get a women’s team, some junior teams and some Auskick next year, that’s what we’ll be aiming for.

“If we’re able to get a senior men’s team as well, that’s an added bonus and we’d be very happy with that.”

 

[NoobPie]

Very good point - I keep an eye on the Rugby Codes Womens developments. They are not as advanced as Womens Soccer Football in those 2 states and also overall NSW is Soccer Football heartland. At one stage 40% of their participants overall were in NSW.
Both Rugby Codes have a National Team who compete regularly.
Womens Rugby Union is played in every state but numbers are not that high, but Rugby Sevens is boosting it, however the ARU management is appalling ATM.
Womens Rugby League is played in NSW and QLD and excluding Touch numbers are small but growing with the NRL getting serious.
The above scenario means that our Womens game up there has an opportunity to get established in the full contact footy vacuum with a solid base, which it should do if handled correctly.
History will record if we were "Just in time" or "Just too late" to get a really good base.

Will be interesting to watch to watch the Newcastle scenario before Rugby League get properly organised, however we do not generally have
"defectors" from our code. Once in they stay in.

There doesn't appear to be anywhere in the northern states where either rugby football code is in a bulls roar of the Aus football for women's participation. In seqld, there are 29 women's Aus football teams to 19 league teams. In Sydney it's 22 to 13. In both cases that translates to 2-3 times the numbers....Obviously union is stuffed but will be interesting to see if league can make up any ground

 

[BringBackTorps]

Its the value the AFL sees in having a big presence in women's sport.

Business engages in activities that do not make a profit all the time.

They do them for marketing and image reasons. For reasons of reputation.

They do it because it's something their customer base values, and helps make sure those customers stay customers using the products that do make a profit.

They do it as part of an expansion phase.

They do it to undercut rivals and to generate market share.

They do it to protect market share.

They do it when entering emerging markets or new areas of opportunity.

How many of those boxes does the women's comp tick?

Sponsors are already getting in the ear of clubs that do not have women's teams saying that they need to get one.

They need to shore up junior boys numbers, and getting girls into clubs helps.

They want to expand into Qld and NSW, but male sport in those states is entrenched, progress is slow and expensive, female sport is less settled.

There was images of a league player on the ground at a Swans game recently, because his daughter was in the Auskick.

What would the AFL pay for this?

If you think that the AFL will only pay female players if it is at no net cost, then you are arguing that these things have no value to the AFL.

What cost they are willing to bear depends on how much they value them, what the opportunity costs are, which is hard to tell from outside.

The AFL would love the AFLW to generate enough cash to pay for it all, and make a profit, but if it doesn't, they are not going to cut it back just to balance the books.

Some of the players are defacto full time footballers in that they still have second jobs, but those jobs are with the club's.

I think the AFL will want this to be formalised into full time positions, so they can point to a pathway to being a fully professional footballer. Think this will take maybe 3 years, with the bulk getting something like the marquee players do now, in the 20 - 30 K range.

I also think the AFLPA will have a lot to do with this, I predict they will become more militant on women's pay.










Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Superbly argued.

A few points to consider, however:-

."In Qld & NSW... progress is NOT EVERYWHERE slow...". AF GR male regd. nos. in SE Qld. are c. similar to male RL. regd. contact nos. -an absurd suggestion if made 30 years ago. AF GR female nos. would easily excede female contact RL nos.
(Soccer GR nos. would excede both AF & RL nos. -soccer is now in virtually every secondary school in Aust.;& probably the majority of primary schools, where male teacher nos. have declined significantly).
I am not including the huge tag/touch regd. nos. These are non-contact, different sports to contact RL -although the NRL wisely bought out the National Oztag organisation c. 2015, hoping to market RL to the players. (P. Rothfield wrote an article in the DT last week, expressing concerns the Parramatta area now has more non-contact Tag/Touch players than contact RL nos.).

Good AF GR regd no. progress is also being made in Syd. private schools; & in the eastern, northern, inner areas of Syd.

.I strongly doubt there will be large nos. of women wanting to play contact RL, RU, or RU 7's.
To be competitive, & safe, in these heavy tackling sports, females would need to do significant strength/weight programs, put on extra kgs, & get more bulked up. IMO, many athletic females would not be enamoured with this.

.If crowds are again averaging over 6,800 in AFLW games in 2018 (&, as the average, modest standard is CERTAIN to rise year-on-year), we can expect much higher crowds from 2019. People in Jan. love their footy fix being sated on a balmy summer evening, at an ol'time footy ground (full strength beer on the warm days would make these games even more popular, & help lubricate the tonsils).
It, therefore, would be demeaning to AFLW players in 2019 not to have an entry charge, as good crowds are achieved -maybe initially, just for adults, $2. NO ONE would quibble at that, especially if it is announced all proceeds go to AFLW player wages.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Superbly argued.

I strongly doubt there will be large nos. of women wanting to play contact RL, RU, or RU 7's.
To be competitive, & safe, in these heavy tackling sports, females would need to do significant strength/weight programs, put on extra kgs, & get more bulked up. IMO, many athletic females would not be enamoured with this.

The AFL are certainly doing a good job to make the sport non contact so more women play it. Can't even imagine what it will look like in 10-15 years.

 

[BringBackTorps]

The AFL are certainly doing a good job to make the sport non contact so more women play it. Can't even imagine what it will look like in 10-15 years.

Women's core strength is much lower than men's -so it takes, relatively, less strength for a woman to FLATTEN another woman in a tackle/bump/collision. Thus, women need just as much courage as men to play AF: they get hurt, & they KNOW that, eventually, all of them will get hurt at some time. Do NOT underestimate or denigrate the courage of women who play. IMO, people are flocking to AFLW matches primarily because of the courage/contest -they are witnessing as fierce a contest (in relative strength terms) as in the men's game.

The AFLW skills, obviously, aren't there yet -so skills are not the reason for the"massive" AFLW attendances & ratings in Year 1 (cf. overseas female professional soccer, which has existed for c.10 years).
In 10-15 years, the skills will be much closer to the men's (if the AFLW is able to attract most of Aust.'s best athletic females, which it probably will).

Leigh Matthews has said, because players are stronger, fitter & heavier than ever before, are able to get to more contests with greater speed (due to interchange), the bumps/collisions & force are greater than ever (supported by Prof. Norton's Report).

I share your dislike as to the tragedy that has befallen the WAFL (& TSL, SANFL, & VFA) -& also blame the AFL. The AFLW is a completely separate issue.