Women's Footy Brisbane Lions Women's Team - Official Discussion

[jatz14]

Re the lack of fitness and shorter game and the inability to play at same intensity and length of time as the men: -
$5k = part time job at best - cannot afford to give up work and train full time like the men
No insurance = out of pocket for physios, massage etc. Again unable to train/play same intensity and length of game.
New sport = very little opportunity to play against other high level players to push development.

I am not sure how much the length of the quarters is related to perceived fitness. The bulk of the players come from the VFL womens comp, and they play 25 minute quarters and seem able to cope. Possibly it is related to heat, as its in summer, but I suspect it has more to do with broadcasting. Committing to broadcasting games from an unknown and uncertain league for perhaps 100 min, may be easier than 140 min.

 

[jatz14]

Apparently the low salary for the women is to test the market viability. This is bullshit logic compared to the GC and GWS franchises. They were crap for years while they developed, and no one knew if they could be viable. Still don't but they were paid at going rate with all the standard bells and whistles.

The fact is that the AFL bankrolled GC/GWS as astandard business growth strategy, and they wore the risk. Not the players. The womens comp should be the same but instead the players are taking on the risk by taking well below industry standard wages and paying their own workers compensation (insurance).

Also, GWS and GC were included in the televising rights which draws in the big $. Well, the ratings = revenue for GC/GWS were crap for years and the TV station was told it had to suck it up if they wanted to win the rights. This negotiation should be repeated for the women's game.

I'd love my daughter to have a crack, but I don't like the way the massive business machine of the AFL is treating the women. They are trying to grow the brand so they should carry the risk.

What I keep comparing it to is entertainment, which it is a form of. If a producer puts on a play, they do not get to tell the actors that they do not deserve any pay until they have drawn a paying audience. You want to put on a professional play, you pay the actors. You benefit the most if it is a huge success, you take the risks if it is not. The actors get paid regardless. You do not want the risk, do not produce the play.

The AFL is getting million dollar sponsors for the league, it is getting it broadcast, it is in every sense a professional sport, it should be paying a professional wage.

 

[winged1]

What I keep comparing it to is entertainment, which it is a form of. If a producer puts on a play, they do not get to tell the actors that they do not deserve any pay until they have drawn a paying audience. You want to put on a professional play, you pay the actors. You benefit the most if it is a huge success, you take the risks if it is not. The actors get paid regardless. You do not want the risk, do not produce the play.

The AFL is getting million dollar sponsors for the league, it is getting it broadcast, it is in every sense a professional sport, it should be paying a professional wage.

Early days, the money will come if the popularity is there.

I was at the Girls Under 12 SEQ carnival on the weekend and the guy goes "and one day in 6 or 7 years you might be making $50,000 for playing football" to which he got absolute crickets from the girls.

I think they were thinking "I will make a shitload more than that mate".

 

[The_Wookie]

What I keep comparing it to is entertainment, which it is a form of. If a producer puts on a play, they do not get to tell the actors that they do not deserve any pay until they have drawn a paying audience. You want to put on a professional play, you pay the actors. You benefit the most if it is a huge success, you take the risks if it is not. The actors get paid regardless. You do not want the risk, do not produce the play.

The AFL is getting million dollar sponsors for the league, it is getting it broadcast, it is in every sense a professional sport, it should be paying a professional wage.

Except thats precisely how it works. Actors start on a lower wage until their success or popularity demands it. One off womens matches and curtain raisers are not sufficient evidence to prove this at this time. And real world examples are available that suggest it might never happen. See: WNBA, other womens sports standalone ratings and crowds. We'll know even more in a few weeks when womens netball gets fta broadcasts underway on Nine.

2-3 million a year is what NAB are giving the league for it. That wont even cover the leagues costs. Theres no guarantee anyone will pay big money for the broadcast deal, it could well end up with the same kind of coverage the VFL gets - paid for by the AFL - and that has a 50k average.

 

[SizeMatters]

50k over a 2-3 months work is pretty darn good pay I would have thought. AFL women's won't ever have play at the same time as the men's do for financial reasons. Netball is the premier female sport in Australia and I don't think they even make 50k and they play a full season over 6 months + iirc.

 

[The_Wookie]

50k over a 2-3 months work is pretty darn good pay I would have thought. AFL women's won't ever have play at the same time as the men's do for financial reasons. Netball is the premier female sport in Australia and I don't think they even make 50k and they play a full season over 6 months + iirc.

Then theres the Netball wage deal, announced in September 2016.

• The new national league next year will see 80 players share a pool of almost $5.5 million and it is hoped the sport could become fully professional within five years.
• Under the new collective bargaining agreement, the average salary for netballers will rise from about $40,000 to $67,500, and the minimum wage more than doubles to $27,375.
• The deal includes breakthrough conditions, like clubs paying for children under 12 months old and a carer to travel to games with players, private health insurance and income protection for up to two years in the event of injury or pregnancy.
• For the first time, all athletes will be on 12-month contracts.
• The hours between 10:00am and 4:00pm will be off-limits to training, to allow women to work and study.

Note: BBL maximum retainer is now $15,000 a year - for a comparable amount of time to the AFL season.

 

[Sherrinator]

Netball has an advantage that list sizes are small so the $$$ are spread thicker.

 

[Jivlain]

50k over a 2-3 months work is pretty darn good pay I would have thought. AFL women's won't ever have play at the same time as the men's do for financial reasons. Netball is the premier female sport in Australia and I don't think they even make 50k and they play a full season over 6 months + iirc.

It's 5k for most, less some pretty hefty expenses.

 

[Davemonkey]

50k over a 2-3 months work is pretty darn good pay I would have thought. AFL women's won't ever have play at the same time as the men's do for financial reasons. Netball is the premier female sport in Australia and I don't think they even make 50k and they play a full season over 6 months + iirc.

Now I am confused. Is the $5K per game or annual?

 

[matwt73]

Now I am confused. Is the $5K per game or annual?

Annual, at the moment, I think SizeMatters was responding to an earlier post by winged1 wherein someone had suggested $50,000.00 per annum within 5- 6 years.

 

[The_Wookie]

Now I am confused. Is the $5K per game or annual?

• MARQUEES will be paid a confirmed $10,000 marketing component and proposed $15,000 playing fee.
• PRIORITY pre-signings — one at each Victorian club and Freo, two at Adelaide, Brisbane and GWS — will command a proposed $10,000.
• HIGH draft selections — possibly four at each club — are also on the $10,000 mark.
• REMAINING players would receive the minimum $5000. The Heraldsun later reported that this had been rejected by the AFLPA.

 

[Davemonkey]

Thanks for that gentlemen.

 

[jatz14]

Except thats precisely how it works. Actors start on a lower wage until their success or popularity demands it. One off womens matches and curtain raisers are not sufficient evidence to prove this at this time. And real world examples are available that suggest it might never happen. See: WNBA, other womens sports standalone ratings and crowds. We'll know even more in a few weeks when womens netball gets fta broadcasts underway on Nine.

2-3 million a year is what NAB are giving the league for it. That wont even cover the leagues costs. Theres no guarantee anyone will pay big money for the broadcast deal, it could well end up with the same kind of coverage the VFL gets - paid for by the AFL - and that has a 50k average.

It is how it works in part. Big time entertainers get big time pay. Small productions pay small wages. However that only applies to a degree, you cannot get out of a wages bill for a big production by hiring unknown actors. Lower wages for lesser actors still means good pay if your in a big production.

No one is arguing that they should get what the men get, it is a much smaller 'production', it is a much less valuable product.

The question is, are they paying unders, and transferring risk to the players, because they know they can, or is the $5k based on something.

Yes, they should get a lot less than the men, yes $5k is a lot less than the men, but that doesn't make $5k the right amount.

It feels like risk minimisation at the expense of the players.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[The_Wookie]

It is how it works in part. Big time entertainers get big time pay. Small productions pay small wages. However that only applies to a degree, you cannot get out of a wages bill for a big production by hiring unknown actors. Lower wages for lesser actors still means good pay if your in a big production.

No one is arguing that they should get what the men get, it is a much smaller 'production', it is a much less valuable product.

The question is, are they paying unders, and transferring risk to the players, because they know they can, or is the $5k based on something.

Yes, they should get a lot less than the men, yes $5k is a lot less than the men, but that doesn't make $5k the right amount.

It feels like risk minimisation at the expense of the players.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

It is risk minimisation. The AFL is as much as business as a sport - if the womens comp loses money, how long do you think the clubs and players will agree to the funding?

 

[winged1]

If the footy is good, people will watch the money will go up. The game will improve when the crop of jnrs that have been playing for years in a girls comp come through. There is some outstanding talent at jnr level in qld

 

[Gadzorks]

It is risk minimisation. The AFL is as much as business as a sport - if the womens comp loses money, how long do you think the clubs and players will agree to the funding?

If the footy is good, people will watch the money will go up. The game will improve when the crop of jnrs that have been playing for years in a girls comp come through. There is some outstanding talent at jnr level in qld

Fair enough. Why didn't the same standards apply to gws and GC? They are still losing money and, like us, surviving on afl hand outs?

For that matter... the lions are not financially viable and need afl money. Why aren't we cutting wages to encourage the players to put on a better show and attract more crowds. They would then be earning the money and could get a pay rise. Same same.

 

[jatz14]

It is risk minimisation. The AFL is as much as business as a sport - if the womens comp loses money, how long do you think the clubs and players will agree to the funding?

There is a difference between something costing, and something losing money. Me investing in the stock market, and watching the portfolio go down is losing money. Buying a car is paying the cost of transport.

Given that in all the stated aims of the league, making money was never mentioned as a goal, and those things that were goals are not redibly visible in a balance sheet. I would have said net expenditure was the cost of achieving their stated goals, not 'losing money'.

If they are not willing to run up a net cost in trying to achieve their stated aims for this league, it implies that they give little real value to them.

Most New ventures have a hopefully short start up period that involves Red ink. How much Red ink is tolerable depends on the ultimate potential and objectives of the venture. So far it isn't looking like the AFL has much ambition or puts much store in this league based on their cost tolerance thus far.

I hope they have higher ambition than, it isn't losing to much money.



Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[The_Wookie]

There is a difference between something costing, and something losing money. Me investing in the stock market, and watching the portfolio go down is losing money. Buying a car is paying the cost of transport.

Given that in all the stated aims of the league, making money was never mentioned as a goal, and those things that were goals are not redibly visible in a balance sheet. I would have said net expenditure was the cost of achieving their stated goals, not 'losing money'.

If they are not willing to run up a net cost in trying to achieve their stated aims for this league, it implies that they give little real value to them.

Most New ventures have a hopefully short start up period that involves Red ink. How much Red ink is tolerable depends on the ultimate potential and objectives of the venture. So far it isn't looking like the AFL has much ambition or puts much store in this league based on their cost tolerance thus far.

I hope they have higher ambition than, it isn't losing to much money.



Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

So far the pay deal is for the 3 months of this competition. 8 games. expenses covered. Theres a lot of assumptions being made on tv and crowds that simply have no basis in reality in any other code or sport. The AFL is being rightfully prudent - and if it takes off, then the second year will be different.

Most new ventures arent also funding an existing venture that has stakeholders that dont want to lose money on the new venture because they make all the money for the overall venture. its not quite the same.

 

[The_Wookie]

Fair enough. Why didn't the same standards apply to gws and GC? They are still losing money and, like us, surviving on afl hand outs?

For that matter... the lions are not financially viable and need afl money. Why aren't we cutting wages to encourage the players to put on a better show and attract more crowds. They would then be earning the money and could get a pay rise. Same same.

This isnt rocket science - the 18 AFL mens clubs are completely bankrolled by the leagues existing arrangmenets and have certain license conditions attached that require AFL funds to be distributed to them due to marketing, licensing, stadium deals, signage and other arrangements. In addition GC and GWS are pretty much guaranteed by virtue of tv rights money for the time being.

This isnt rocket science - the conditions for the womens clubs are nowhere near as guaranteed as funding for the mens competition and clubs are. 3 million a year is all the AFL have been offered for the naming rights for the comp, theres no gate takings in the first season - entry is free - so no real membership entitlements either. The clubs arent paying for marketing, travel and accommodation, umpiring, liability insurance etc etc - and this is on top of the AFL covering the wages.

 

[Gadzorks]

This isnt rocket science - the 18 AFL mens clubs are completely bankrolled by the leagues existing arrangmenets and have certain license conditions attached that require AFL funds to be distributed to them due to marketing, licensing, stadium deals, signage and other arrangements. In addition GC and GWS are pretty much guaranteed by virtue of tv rights money for the time being.

This isnt rocket science - the conditions for the womens clubs are nowhere near as guaranteed as funding for the mens competition and clubs are. 3 million a year is all the AFL have been offered for the naming rights for the comp, theres no gate takings in the first season - entry is free - so no real membership entitlements either. The clubs arent paying for marketing, travel and accommodation, umpiring, liability insurance etc etc - and this is on top of the AFL covering the wages.

How does that justify a billion dollar business passing under industry standard wages.
When I set up my business and I didn't have clients I still had to pay my employees standard rates. my takings were minimal, I had to heavily discount my prices to attract clients and business survival was definately not guaranteed and I would have been significantly out of pocket if it failed.
Standard business risk.

 

[The_Wookie]

How does that justify a billion dollar business passing under industry standard wages.
When I set up my business and I didn't have clients I still had to pay my employees standard rates. my takings were minimal, I had to heavily discount my prices to attract clients and business survival was definately not guaranteed and I would have been significantly out of pocket if it failed.
Standard business risk.

What industry standard wages? Womens sport doesnt exactly HAVE a standard industry wage - and sports are not governed by an award. See: EVERY SPORT EVER.

 

[Gadzorks]

Wel

What industry standard wages? Womens sport doesnt exactly HAVE a standard industry wage - and sports are not governed by an award. See: EVERY SPORT EVER.

Hahahahahaha. that's a great reason to never change. If we stayed the same as the historical precedent the mens game would still be amateur they would be getting $5k a year. ridiculous. bye.

 

[The_Wookie]

Wel

Hahahahahaha. that's a great reason to never change. If we stayed the same as the historical precedent the mens game would still be amateur they would be getting $5k a year. ridiculous. bye.

Lol you throw up "industry standard wages" - when there are none - and then move the goal posts. Ok then. o great and dismissive one.

1. its a temporary arrangement for literally next years 8 week competition. Its not a permanent arrangement.
2. Sports wages have ALWAYS been determined by the popularity of the sport, just like wages in other entertainment formats are determined by the popularity of the entertainment in question. That has yet to be determined for womens sport - IN ANY CODE - and next years short season will give everyone a lot more information, and give the women more to bargain with.

 

[winged1]

I think the thing people are overlooking is that yes they are throwing, essentially marketing, $$ into the women's league. But you have to consider the kick on effect of participation numbers at jnr level, this is one of the few avenues left to still grow the game and while the top league will lose money for a while it will eventually become profitable if the product is good enough.

 

[jatz14]

I think the thing people are overlooking is that yes they are throwing, essentially marketing, $$ into the women's league. But you have to consider the kick on effect of participation numbers at jnr level, this is one of the few avenues left to still grow the game and while the top league will lose money for a while it will eventually become profitable if the product is good enough.

This is one of the difficult to quantify aims of the league that should justify some expense.

One way to look at it is, if there wasn't a women's league, and the AFL had been presented a proposal that would massively boost female grass root participation, go some way to temper the view of the AFL as being inherently sexist, generate positive publicity, and begin to diversify football clubs at all levels, what would they have been willing to pay for that.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk