AFLW Pay

[Brett C]

There are proper gripes about they pay and I think they're right about that (as others when they've pointed out the problems with the pay).

On the other hand, I agree with whining about things like the rule changes or broadcast schedules - as if they believe that there's some attempted undermining of the competition from Channel 7 or the AFL or whatever. There's no reason that the rules have to be the same for the men (and their claims of rules being "trialled" are not only off the mark but also no different to the men's AFL when things like no third man up rules were still being worked out in the pre-season) and things like 7mate are an entirely commercial decision - Channel 7 started more games on their main channel last year and then shifted them to 7mate as ratings dropped last season. If ratings pick up on 7mate, I'm sure Channel 7 would be equally as willing to shift them back to the main channel rather than showing a movie rerun or whatever.

I’m curious why you think there are proper gripes about the pay? I’d love to see the financials for the AFLW as I think it would make a substantial loss.

People like to compare the comp to the early years of the VFL but I doubt those players demanded payrises off the back of 1 year of terrible football

 

[10571z]

I’m curious why you think there are proper gripes about the pay? I’d love to see the financials for the AFLW as I think it would make a substantial loss.

People like to compare the comp to the early years of the VFL but I doubt those players demanded payrises off the back of 1 year of terrible football

They just want to sook.

Why are English Premier League Soccer players paid more than AFL players? Why are VFL players payed less than AFL players. Because sport is a business.

Generate income and make your product worth investing in and the money will come.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

They just want to sook.

Why are English Premier League Soccer players paid more than AFL players? Why are VFL players payed less than AFL players. Because sport is a business.

Generate income and make your product worth investing in and the money will come.

Firstly, sport isn't a business, that's why the AFL is a non-profit organisation.
Secondly, how exactly can the women "generate income" when for generations there's been pushback and lack of support compared to men whenever they've tried to play?

 

[Brett C]

Firstly, sport isn't a business, that's why the AFL is a non-profit organisation.
Secondly, how exactly can the women "generate income" when for generations there's been pushback and lack of support compared to men whenever they've tried to play?

What I will say to this is that to lump the AFL with the majority of not for profit organisations is disingenuous. The AFL revenue was more than $500m last year and it hardly struggled to survive like 90% of NFP’s.

You can talk all you like about pushback or lack of support but most sports fan will not pay for or heavily support a sport that at best is the level of under 14/15’s at the moment.

You can talk about giving it time but even in 20 years the best woman’s player in AFLW would be lucky to make a VFL reserve teams bench. The only women’s sports that get strong support are those that have no comparable men’s equivalent eg netball.

By your theory we should have a semi professional national Men’s Netball competition because men play netball and we should provide support irrespective of the cost.

 

[NoobPie]

I agree that Girls Play Footy seems to have flicked the switch to negative at some point which is a shame as the effort they have put in is fantastic

I found this particularly poor, almost unhinged

http://[NB: girlsplayfooty domain h...017/12/stop-changing-the-rules-for-women.html

Turns out that the last possession rule was based on consultation with the women's consultative committee....so probably some of the women that had #samegame superimposed over them were involved in that process.

Anyway, on a far more positive note, this is a great podcast on AFL.com.au with an interview with Nicole Livingstone


http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-01-23/aflw-podcast-trail-blazers-returns-in-2018

 

[threenewpadlocks]

What I will say to this is that to lump the AFL with the majority of not for profit organisations is disingenuous. The AFL revenue was more than $500m last year and it hardly struggled to survive like 90% of NFP’s.

You can talk all you like about pushback or lack of support but most sports fan will not pay for or heavily support a sport that at best is the level of under 14/15’s at the moment.

You can talk about giving it time but even in 20 years the best woman’s player in AFLW would be lucky to make a VFL reserve teams bench. The only women’s sports that get strong support are those that have no comparable men’s equivalent eg netball.

By your theory we should have a semi professional national Men’s Netball competition because men play netball and we should provide support irrespective of the cost.

There's so much wrong with this I don't know where to start, but let's go

• If the AFL is a business, than why does it conduct dozens and dozens of activities that are non-money-making but are part of its non profit purpose of promoting, developing and nurturing the game, ranging from spending money to induct former players into a hall of fame as well as paying tens of thousands of dollars so the U/18 academy can go to the IMG academy in Florida?
• No-one's debating the fact that females have less physical capability than males. But the vast difference in quality of play is to do with size of the talent pool (the AFL represents the top 0.001% or whatever the figure may of all active, current senior male footy players, whilst when the AFLW conducted it's initial draft, four Victorian AFLW teams were effectively picking from a pool of 50-odd active senior women's footy teams in Victoria) and development (before 2004, teenage girls couldn't play footy because competitions for them didn't exist, the girls have only had a TAC Cup system for one year, right down to smaller things like crapper coaching historically etc.). It's also funny how all of that is because of inaction by the AFL in generations bygone to do anything different.
• And no, there are other sports, such as Tennis, Golf and various Olympic sports like Athletics, Swimming etc. where there's strong support. What's the difference between those sports and footy? There hasn't been historical cultural conditioning against females playing those sports, and once there's been a generation or more of equal access to facilities, development etc., there's not only a minimised gap in quality, but there's also relatively equal support from the public as they're used to those females playing those sports (and guess what - they really don't care that it happens to be females playing it. As Cathy Freeman won the 400m, did Australians say "we don't care because she couldn't beat a male 400m runner?". And of course you're going to get some people will say that female tennis players don't deserve as much money as women, but at the same time, if you walk around with a ground pass at the Aus Open, it's not as if the crowds for the men's games are massively higher than the women's.
• Ahh, the old sexist favourite's "but but but what about my men's netball". If Netball Australia believe that it's their mission to improve male participation of netball (not that I've seen it anywhere), and there's a strong underlying voice for male netball players (there isn't), then you'd have a point, but those aren't happening, so you don't.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Firstly, sport isn't a business, that's why the AFL is a non-profit organisation.
Secondly, how exactly can the women "generate income" when for generations there's been pushback and lack of support compared to men whenever they've tried to play?

The AFL is as much a business as any other business. That they fall under the NFP banner is still mind boggling to say the least.
A NFP business would not be paying executives bonuses on profits as the AFL do.
Yes by law the AFL do have to invest their profits back into the game which I guess they do somewhat.
But to try and call the AFL not a business is way off the mark.

 

[NoobPie]

The AFL is as much a business as any other business. That they fall under the NFP banner is still mind boggling to say the least.

It really shouldn't be because it is pretty freakin simple. It falls under a NFP banner because it is a NFP

A NFP business would not be paying executives bonuses on profits as the AFL do.

Who says? Peoples value judgement don't come into it. What matters is the organsiation is not for profit, and whatever the executives are paid they are taxed on as private individuals

Yes by law the AFL do have to invest their profits back into the game which I guess they do somewhat.

Somewhat? Where else does it go, pray?

But to try and call the AFL not a business is way off the mark.

Well, I agree that the AFL has a considerable commercial orientation and, in fact, calls itself a business a lot of the time (alternatively and "industry", "game", "sport", "family", "community" etc)

It is certainly not true to say the AFL is only interested in commercial outcomes, however

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It is certainly not true to say the AFL is only interested in commercial outcomes, however

Well it's pretty close to it, they actually admit themselves they compromise the fixture to maximise profits. They are a profit driven business.

 

[NoobPie]

Well it's pretty close to it, they actually admit themselves they compromise the fixture to maximise profits. They are a profit driven business.

You're confused

 

[jatz14]

Well it's pretty close to it, they actually admit themselves they compromise the fixture to maximise profits. They are a profit driven business.

Worked for years for a very large NFP. Very concerned with maximising revenue and generating income. NFPs that are not concerned with maximising income do not usually survive long. Also, large organisations pay commensurate executive rates, wether for profit, or not.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[10571z]

Firstly, sport isn't a business, that's why the AFL is a non-profit organisation.
Secondly, how exactly can the women "generate income" when for generations there's been pushback and lack of support compared to men whenever they've tried to play?

Um the same way any developing league generates income.

I think you miss one thing. No one owes women a league. There is no human right to be gifted a league.

THE AFL (VFL previously), English Premier league, NBA, NFL

Didn't just start overnight with massive pay deals for all employees and prime time tv action but sadly some have forgot and want everything gifted overnight.

A close family friend who played in multiple grand finals for Collingwood infront of 100k was never payed more than the premier recruits of the womens league. But sadly many supporters in season 1 cry about the "unfair" wage.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Um the same way any developing league generates income.

I think you miss one thing. No one owes women a league. There is no human right to be gifted a league.

THE AFL (VFL previously), English Premier league, NBA, NFL

Didn't just start overnight with massive pay deals for all employees and prime time tv action but sadly some have forgot and want everything gifted overnight.

A close family friend who played in multiple grand finals for Collingwood infront of 100k was never payed more than the premier recruits of the womens league. But sadly many supporters in season 1 cry about the "unfair" wage.

I'll make two generic points as opposed to replying to everything in this thread.

It's not a matter of "owing" women a league as much as it is recognition for historical imbalances against women. I shouldn't have to go through the history of women attempting to play footy, but to put it simply they were discouraged at every opportunity.

The second point is that once you factored in the requirements of being an AFLW player and hours beyond what the initial contract was, majority of players were effectively getting paid below minimum wage. There's also the "fairness" aspect when you consider the benefit of the AFLW to the AFL's brand and how the players didn't get the requisite proportion of contributing to the value of that brand.

It's not something I necessarily agree with, but there's also the valid equality argument of this: if women are just as naturally talented and dedicated to their craft as men, the fact that they can't play in the men's league is completely out of their control because of the fact that they were born a women, it's unfair that someone who was born a male with identical talent and dedication earns significantly more by the simple fact that they were born male. That women is also further disadvantaged by the "economics" in the sense that there isn't support for women's footy because of sexism in the past, when you compare to other sports like Tennis where they get similar pay because there's been a generation of similar fan support because there hasn't been that sexist discouragement for them to play in the past. It's not about being "gifted", its about recognising those facts.

I'll go through the history of women's tennis just very quickly:

• In the early 70's, Billie Jean King (partially in response to the Battle of The Sexes match) said that given women are just as naturally talented (relative to other women) and dedicated as men, it's kind of silly that there were 10:1 or more prize money differences in tennis, especially when popularity wasn't actually 10:1 diffences
• She formed the women's tour, the WTA, and in part because they didn't want to lose women's players (it would be a poor financial decision), and in part because many agreed with her, over time pay gradually reached parity
• With over a generation of similar support for both genders and opportunity to play, the public has roughly equal interest in both female and males tennis despite the so called "inferior" nature of tennis and the ability gap between the two sports is largely because of differences in physical capability and not development/talent pool.

The difference is that footy hasn't had that same opportunity for women. They couldn't play after auskick. Women's leagues were only introduced in the 1980's, and the facilities and difficulty of playing was even worse than the crappiest men's league - they were coaching themselves etc. All of that opportunity, even to today (as teenage girls' footy was only introduced in 2004, meaning that any AFLW player 28 or over quite literally could not have played organised footy as a teenager, inhibiting their development), has factored into why the league what it is today.

One could argue that the AFL is simply rectifying the past in the fact that they haven't given the opportunity or access to talented, dedicated female players.

Others could argue that it's simply missing the point in women's sport in changing society, such as the pushback that Rugby League has gotten by not developing the female game in recent years and the strategic implications that has in terms of long-term fan support, participation, sponsorship and government funding.

And comparing women's footy now to men's footy in the past is very disingenuous. It's not a now vs them debate. It's a fact that footy is a billion-dollar-a-year industry and half the population of players are hardly making a living wage despite being elite at their craft. Footy wasn't a billion-dollar-a-year industry in the 1960's or whatever.

 

[jatz14]

Um the same way any developing league generates income.

I think you miss one thing. No one owes women a league. There is no human right to be gifted a league.

THE AFL (VFL previously), English Premier league, NBA, NFL

Didn't just start overnight with massive pay deals for all employees and prime time tv action but sadly some have forgot and want everything gifted overnight.

A close family friend who played in multiple grand finals for Collingwood infront of 100k was never payed more than the premier recruits of the womens league. But sadly many supporters in season 1 cry about the "unfair" wage.

Comparisons to the past are pointless. Entirely different world.

A better comparison would be to something like a commercial legal firm. Top lawyers income is determined by the work they bring in, and billable work they do. However, if the firm decided they need to polish their image and engage in pro bono and social work, and engaged lawyers for this purpose, they cannot then say, you do not generate income, so you do not get paid. Add in para legals and office staff who do not bring in work, but who still get paid.

Income generators get paid according to income generated. Other staff providing services the organisation decides it needs to offer, get a wage regardless of whether they are income generators or not.

AFL players are income generators. AFLW players are employed to provide a service the AFL determined it needed to provide. They get a wage. If the AFL does not feel they deserve a wage because they do not generate income, then do not have an AFLW.

Given the AFL has decided to proceed with the AFLW, then the appropriate wage needs to be determined. It is based entirely on hours engaged and the appropriate hourly rate. Income generated has zero to do with it. Nothing, Nada, zip, as they are not taken on as income generators.

Sent from my Lenovo TB3-710F using Tapatalk

 

[Brett C]

There's so much wrong with this I don't know where to start, but let's go

• If the AFL is a business, than why does it conduct dozens and dozens of activities that are non-money-making but are part of its non profit purpose of promoting, developing and nurturing the game, ranging from spending money to induct former players into a hall of fame as well as paying tens of thousands of dollars so the U/18 academy can go to the IMG academy in Florida?
• No-one's debating the fact that females have less physical capability than males. But the vast difference in quality of play is to do with size of the talent pool (the AFL represents the top 0.001% or whatever the figure may of all active, current senior male footy players, whilst when the AFLW conducted it's initial draft, four Victorian AFLW teams were effectively picking from a pool of 50-odd active senior women's footy teams in Victoria) and development (before 2004, teenage girls couldn't play footy because competitions for them didn't exist, the girls have only had a TAC Cup system for one year, right down to smaller things like crapper coaching historically etc.). It's also funny how all of that is because of inaction by the AFL in generations bygone to do anything different.
• And no, there are other sports, such as Tennis, Golf and various Olympic sports like Athletics, Swimming etc. where there's strong support. What's the difference between those sports and footy? There hasn't been historical cultural conditioning against females playing those sports, and once there's been a generation or more of equal access to facilities, development etc., there's not only a minimised gap in quality, but there's also relatively equal support from the public as they're used to those females playing those sports (and guess what - they really don't care that it happens to be females playing it. As Cathy Freeman won the 400m, did Australians say "we don't care because she couldn't beat a male 400m runner?". And of course you're going to get some people will say that female tennis players don't deserve as much money as women, but at the same time, if you walk around with a ground pass at the Aus Open, it's not as if the crowds for the men's games are massively higher than the women's.
• Ahh, the old sexist favourite's "but but but what about my men's netball". If Netball Australia believe that it's their mission to improve male participation of netball (not that I've seen it anywhere), and there's a strong underlying voice for male netball players (there isn't), then you'd have a point, but those aren't happening, so you don't.

So much wrong with your post I don't know where to start either so I'll just start with the AFLW.

Let's ignore the physical aspect and look at the skill level. I've seen Auskick kicks able to kick, handball and catch at a higher level than the semi professional "footballers" of the AFLW. The expectation the players and supporters have with regard to facilities, pay and conditions completely ignores the fact it's a new comp and they are lucky to be getting paid at all based on the actual skill level.

To compare the AFLW to Cathy Freeman is like comparing Ian Thorpe to Eric the eel.

Not sur why you've called me a sexist for mentioning men's netball. There have been local comps, state and national titles since the early 90's. How do I know, I played for years.

If you're advocating equal support for both men and women's sports then you can't cherry pick across sports.

If there was such a strong underlying support from players for AFLW then why were so many non afl players until money came into it?

Youve mentioned activities that are non money making such the under 18 academy, you realise the majority of these players will play senior AFL and that's the competition that in essence that funds everything the AFL does. The AFLW is a financial drain on the comp and is highly unlikely to ever break even.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

"footballers" of the AFLW.

Of course. Nice to see where you stand about what you think about women playing football. Got it

 

[Brett C]

Of course. Nice to see where you stand about what you think about women playing football. Got it

I have no issue with women playing football. I just don’t believe they should be paid for being terrible.

put together an AFLW all star team and they’d lose to the best 14/15 year old boys in the country

 

[jatz14]

I have no issue with women playing football. I just don’t believe they should be paid for being terrible.

put together an AFLW all star team and they’d lose to the best 14/15 year old boys in the country

They are being paid because the AFL wants a pro women's league. Wether they would beat 15 year old boys is irrelevant.

Sent from my Lenovo TB3-710F using Tapatalk

 

[Vicky Park]

I have no issue with women playing football. I just don’t believe they should be paid for being terrible.

put together an AFLW all star team and they’d lose to the best 14/15 year old boys in the country

The best women footballers are now being paid, and rightly so. It’s not about compensating them for ‘terrible’ football. It’s about recognition, and inclusion, and giving more girls opportunities and better pathways to play footy. That is the point.

The quality of the footy played will improve over time. But it needs professional players - i.e. paid players - to do that.

 

[drunkill]

Disappointing, especially since they paid $0 for the right to broadcast it too (yes, they paid for the AFL broadcast rights sure) could have been given to the ABC for free for a few years before the rights were to be sold.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

And on top of that, if you are going to make a point about the differences in quality of play, as I said earlier it's largely because of the talent pool and the historical development. The league will get better over time, aside from the facilities/development of the AFLW teams in itself, but because of any given 18 year old coming through would have generally played through since auskick and appeared for TAC Cup teams/other state equivalents, opportunities that weren't there for any given 28 year old. It wasn't the girls' fault that they didn't have a TAC program previously.

 

[Brett C]

The best women footballers are now being paid, and rightly so. It’s not about compensating them for ‘terrible’ football. It’s about recognition, and inclusion, and giving more girls opportunities and better pathways to play footy. That is the point.

The quality of the footy played will improve over time. But it needs professional players - i.e. paid players - to do that.

Maybe we should be paying aboriginal footballers professional wages in the Tiwi Islands in the interest of inclusion and recognition and providing them with opportunities and better pathways.

Where does it end.

 

[Catters 070911]

There are proper gripes about they pay and I think they're right about that (as others when they've pointed out the problems with the pay).

On the other hand, I agree with whining about things like the rule changes or broadcast schedules - as if they believe that there's some attempted undermining of the competition from Channel 7 or the AFL or whatever. There's no reason that the rules have to be the same for the men (and their claims of rules being "trialled" are not only off the mark but also no different to the men's AFL when things like no third man up rules were still being worked out in the pre-season) and things like 7mate are an entirely commercial decision - Channel 7 started more games on their main channel last year and then shifted them to 7mate as ratings dropped last season. If ratings pick up on 7mate, I'm sure Channel 7 would be equally as willing to shift them back to the main channel rather than showing a movie rerun or whatever.

Why should they get paid?

Better still, pay them from what? The AFL decided it was a good idea to make these games free, so there is NO money coming in from gate receipts.

I know the men get paid a lot, but the men's VFL/AFL competition is over 120 years old, is bringing in millions, and the TV rights cost Seven plenty. They get sponsorship galore, and tens of thousands attending games each week. It is the most profitable sport in Australia, and one of the most profitable entities of any "company" in Australia.

The VFL players in 1898 (two years into the VFL) weren't getting paid what AFL players get today, so women shouldn't be paid what the AFL men in 2018 are getting paid, either.

The AFLW is in its second year, bring in nothing at the gate (because it is free), and Seven don't even rate it enough to put it on its main channel (I bet they would never put MKR on 7Mate). They have a few sponsors, and many attending the game, but not anywhere near the men.

Do you know why the men are paid more? Because of something called "market forces". They bring more in, so they get more. This is why they deserved their pay rise in the recent negotiations. The players do more to generate money for the AFL than AFLW or grassroots footy does, yet most of you would be happy if they got scraps for their contribution, while giving money to charity cases who can't help themselves. Charity starts at home.Yet the media questioned why the men (who bring millions through the gate) deserved a cent more from the AFL then they were already getting , yet women, who bring nothing through the gate, because it is free, got people like Caroline Wilson putting on her Suffragettes hat and calling for equal pay).

Maybe the way to AFLW players more is for AFL to bring in admission fees for fans to attend. Charge them starting with $25 dollars. Sell memberships for the same price as male AFL teams, and if they bring in the same money, then pay them the same. I would like to see how many would attend if they had to pay to see an AFLW game.

Who knows, in 120 years time, if AFLW has survived and thrived, and pulls in tens of thousands, and achieves what the AFL men's teams are doing now, then by all means. But don't pay them equal just because they say so. You have to earn it.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Why should they get paid?

Better still, pay them from what? The AFL decided it was a good idea to make these games free, so there is NO money coming in from gate receipts.

I know the men get paid a lot, but the men's VFL/AFL competition is over 120 years old, is bringing in millions, and the TV rights cost Seven plenty. They get sponsorship galore, and tens of thousands attending games each week. It is the most profitable sport in Australia, and one of the most profitable entities of any "company" in Australia.

The VFL players in 1898 (two years into the VFL) weren't getting paid what AFL players get today, so women shouldn't be paid what the AFL men in 2018 are getting paid, either.

The AFLW is in its second year, bring in nothing at the gate (because it is free), and Seven don't even rate it enough to put it on its main channel (I bet they would never put MKR on 7Mate). They have a few sponsors, and many attending the game, but not anywhere near the men.

Do you know why the men are paid more? Because of something called "market forces". They bring more in, so they get more. This is why they deserved their pay rise in the recent negotiations. The players do more to generate money for the AFL than AFLW or grassroots footy does, yet most of you would be happy if they got scraps for their contribution, while giving money to charity cases who can't help themselves. Charity starts at home.Yet the media questioned why the men (who bring millions through the gate) deserved a cent more from the AFL then they were already getting , yet women, who bring nothing through the gate, because it is free, got people like Caroline Wilson putting on her Suffragettes hat and calling for equal pay).

Maybe the way to AFLW players more is for AFL to bring in admission fees for fans to attend. Charge them starting with $25 dollars. Sell memberships for the same price as male AFL teams, and if they bring in the same money, then pay them the same. I would like to see how many would attend if they had to pay to see an AFLW game.

Who knows, in 120 years time, if AFLW has survived and thrived, and pulls in tens of thousands, and achieves what the AFL men's teams are doing now, then by all means. But don't pay them equal just because they say so. You have to earn it.

I bet you're fun at parties.

If the "market" for football is entirely your argument, why does the government pay for stadiums being built? Why not just let the money earned by the AFL from the "market" build stadiums? Is the AFL a charity case because it plays in stadiums that were paid for by the government?

 

[BringBackTorps]

Let's ignore the physical aspect and look at the skill level. I've seen Auskick kicks able to kick, handball and catch at a higher level than the semi professional "footballers" of the AFLW.[RUBBISH]
The AFLW is a financial drain on the comp and is highly unlikely to ever break even.[INCORRECT]

I have been heavily involved with Auskick, & your skill comparisons are TOTALLY untrue -you are trolling here. The AFLW is FAR superior to Auskick, it is demeaning to make comparisons - & you know this.

Incidentally, Courtney Gum has been reported as being able to kick 40 mtrs on her non-preferred left foot. T.Harris kicks 50 mtrs+. Daisy Pearce is a gun with both feet.
(Many men don't have these skills).
There have been high scoring AFLW practice matches so far in 2018, average kicking skills are increasing -expect a big increase in overall skill levels for the bottom 5 in 2018, now that elite training & facilities are available to women for the first time.
Women (if the AFLW can attract the best female athletes) will eventually have similar skills to men - perhaps 10 years+ approx.

The AFLW almost broke even in 2017, despite large one-off establishment costs. Sponsorships were excellent, & are likely to increase significantly. The big crowds & Ratings will also attract strong new funds for the AFLW, from 2019. Game 1 in 2017, peaking at 1,000,000+, alone would have been worth c. $1,000,000 to advertisers for such strong Ratings, according to media reports then (The AFL will probably charge for TV Rights from 2019).

Are you aware that teenage girls had to take court action in 2003, through VCAT, just to be allowed to continue to play AF?
Do you think that women, since they started to play AF in 1915, have had the same opportunities & encouragement as males to play AF?

Most on BF know that playing AF is a very enjoyable, fun experience. Why ,since 1919, have many millions of females been denied (due to inadequate support & funding from AF orgs.) this enjoyment & fun? Was this fair?
Now is the time for restitution (which should be based on commercial realities, fan interest, skill improvements etc.- along with short & long term crucial strategic imperatives.)

The AFLW offers huge strategic benefits for the short & long term health of the AFL, & GR AF. Do you understand this?
If you don't want to watch, that's OK -plenty of people do like it!

Why does women's tennis rate so highly, the average women's pro. player would rarely win a point against an average male pro?

A heavy weight male world champion boxer would probably knock out a bantam or featherweight male world champion in the 1st round.
No one sneers at the skills/efforts/entertainment value/remuneration of the world champion bantams & featherweights? Similar to your AFLW comments, do you also sneer at these boxers, because they are " not as good"?

Women's sport, due to physical/strength differences, should be primarily judged on its own merits -not against the equivalent male sport.