Society/Culture The Gender Pay Gap

[jatz14]

Why? It's the same principles, the side that is paying is making a lot of cash, so they're paying players. The side that isn't is a start up club with very little money. It's about income vs expenses. Nothing to do with gender.

So AFL teams not making money should have their salary cap slashed accordingly?

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[jatz14]

The difference in standard wouldn't be that stark given how few people actually play women's footy.

What people need to realise is that domestic level sport is a viable career path to a tiny percentage of people. It's only really the AFL and NRL where the average player makes a good living and even then a huge number of players are in and out of the system within two to three years without really making any money from it. State cricketers, A-League players, NBL players... most of them don't make huge money.

People arguing that women's AFL (I assume that's what the comp will be called) players "deserve" $x are just arguing for the AFL to subsidise the comp.

They have said they are not looking for the comp to make money, so those arguing for the AFL to subsidise the comp are arguing for the AFL to do what the AFL has said it is going to do.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[jatz14]

Mens national ice hockey league here in aus doesn't even pay its players at all. its been running longer then the womens league has a national tv coverage on pay tv and still the most players are entitled to is have travel costs covered by the club.
Why? because its not popular and the players have no leverage to demand payment.

the fact that its a "national comp" is meaningless.

this is one of the non issues regarding the pay gap. If the players in the women's afl want more money, protest, threaten not play, start lockouts. (you know the thing workers have to do to get a livable wage right around the world) If the administrators think their worth what their asking, they will get it. If not they may have to get an actual job.

Now if people were arguing that women shouldn't be excluded from a chance a competing in the AFL, they have my support. As long as a woman is not given any concessions and held to the same athletic standards as the men, there's no reason a woman shouldn't be able to try out for the draft.

Not clear on your argument. An organisation that makes basically nothing, pays it's players nothing, so an organisation that makes billions should pay women nothing?

The AFL spends all its money on Male players, because they generate the money, and it doesn't spend anything on anything or anyone else, right?

Or does it, but they shouldn't spend it on a women's league.

Perhaps the AFL is spending money on a women's comp because it wants to?

They have that right I assume.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[jatz14]

Honestly I doubt it. Women's soccer is far more advanced as a sport with a much bigger playing base than women's Australian rules football. Yet elite women's teams lose to boys that age or possibly younger.

It doesn't mean the standard of play isn't better though. It just means teenage boys that train hard are stronger and faster than women that train hard.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Chief]

what other lens is their to view the world through? claims are being made, claims which i have never come across in my professional career which include me working for both small businesses and large corporations. I'm sure there are sections of society where things aren't honky dory but any businesses partaking in such discrimination will fail in the long run.

You aren't the only one that has worked in a business.

Your anecdote is not the sum total of all data.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Rob]

It doesn't mean the standard of play isn't better though. It just means teenage boys that train hard are stronger and faster than women that train hard.

Sorry, what? An on field flogging doesn't mean the standard of play is better?

Honestly, how else do you measure standard of play but on the scoreboard????

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Not clear on your argument. An organisation that makes basically nothing, pays it's players nothing, so an organisation that makes billions should pay women nothing?

The AFL spends all its money on Male players, because they generate the money, and it doesn't spend anything on anything or anyone else, right?

Or does it, but they shouldn't spend it on a women's league.

Perhaps the AFL is spending money on a women's comp because it wants to?

They have that right I assume.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

i was refuting the argument that by virtual of being a "national competition" it entitles people to certain level of pay.
said argument is utter nonsense as shown by the fact that national leagues around the country pay a pittance.

i'm confused as to what your talking about here. I'm not saying pay women less, i said if the women want more demand more, if there worth it they will get it. but arguing "oh the league is national" is not an argument for better pay. (atleast not a logical argument)

 

[Maggie5]

i was refuting the argument that by virtual of being a "national competition" it entitles people to certain level of pay.
said argument is utter nonsense as shown by the fact that national leagues around the country pay a pittance.

i'm confused as to what your talking about here. I'm not saying pay women less, i said if the women want more demand more, if there worth it they will get it. but arguing "oh the league is national" is not an argument for better pay. (atleast not a logical argument)

Perhaps I should clarify...
The AFL have decided to put together a national women's football league.
Each team will have two marquee players that will be paid $25k, the rest will be paid $5k. I am assuming that they would anticipate that by forming this league will encourage girls/women to play football now that the competition will be national.
If there is sufficient interest and the games attracts crowds (Saturday's game attendance will be interesting) it will in turn attract sponsors.
I just think that unless you are one of the marquee players, $5k doesn't seem like a lot.
Think it is a very low base.
Not sure how many games there will be but assuming 10, $250 per game doesn't seem like a lot when you consider the clubs are the ones that will be incurring the majority of costs.
If they want to attract female players to take up the game professionally, they could offer a little more.

 

[jatz14]

i was refuting the argument that by virtual of being a "national competition" it entitles people to certain level of pay.
said argument is utter nonsense as shown by the fact that national leagues around the country pay a pittance.

i'm confused as to what your talking about here. I'm not saying pay women less, i said if the women want more demand more, if there worth it they will get it. but arguing "oh the league is national" is not an argument for better pay. (atleast not a logical argument)

Edit: I reread your post and realise my response has gone off beam, but I will leave it as it does answer the sort of argument some are making.

You gave the example of a sport that cannot afford to pay it's players not paying them, and we have the example of the AFL who can afford to pay it's players, and pays them well.

So if the point you were making is that the women play for an organisation that can afford to pay them, and that therefore they should be paid, then congratulations, it is a point well made Sir.

People are paid to play by their sport according to its capacity to pay, wether it is national or not is irrelevant.

The AFL could have told the women to bugger of and start their own league, and the pay would have been nil or poor, but they didn't. The AFL as part of its strategic thinking has determined that a women's league is a key part of its strategy for growth and investment in the future.

To suggest that a professional well financed organisation could embark on a strategic endeavour not intended to produce immediate financial gains, and then say that as there will not be immediate financial gains, it is not going to pay those that it specifically recruited for that endeavour is absurd.

You may think the AFLs strategy is stupid, but to then say that means they shouldn't pay for it is just stupid.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[jatz14]

Sorry, what? An on field flogging doesn't mean the standard of play is better?

Honestly, how else do you measure standard of play but on the scoreboard????

You cannot compare on the scoreboard unless it is like for like.

You could put a female sprinter up against a male sprinter. Woman starts flawlessly, has perfect form all the way to the end and finishes in a female World record. Guy starts slowly, has sloppy form, and trails all the way before just overpowering her on the finish line with a decent but unexceptional time for a guy. He wins and gets a better time, and this makes him faster, but does it make him better?

If you wanted your kid trained to sprint, do you want the technically perfect World beating woman, or the technically poor, bog standard male?

You know why boxing sometimes describes boxers as being the pound for pound best in the world? It acknowledges them as being better than boxers who they couldn't beat because they are in a heavier class.

Women competing against men are always competing 4 or 5 divisions up.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Sydney Bloods]

You gave the example of a sport that cannot afford to pay it's players not paying them, and we have the example of the AFL who can afford to pay it's players, and pays them well.

So if the point you were making is that the women play for an organisation that can afford to pay them, and that therefore they should be paid, then congratulations, it is a point well made Sir.

People are paid to play by their sport according to its capacity to pay, wether it is national or not is irrelevant.

The AFL could have told the women to bugger of and start their own league, and the pay would have been nil or poor, but they didn't. The AFL as part of its strategic thinking has determined that a women's league is a key part of its strategy for growth and investment in the future.

To suggest that a professional well financed organisation could embark on a strategic endeavour not intended to produce immediate financial gains, and then say that as there will not be immediate financial gains, it is not going to pay those that it specifically recruited for that endeavour is absurd.

You may think the AFLs strategy is stupid, but to then say that means they shouldn't pay for it is just stupid.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Re the bolded, kudos you agree with me. As for the rest of your inaccurate rambling post which is based off, what i assume is someone else arguments because not once have i said the AFL should pay the women's league players less, nor have said i disagree with the afl's strategy at all. So what can i say, other then i still have no ******* idea what your talking about?

oh and FYI the AIHL has more then enough funds to actually pay its players, not a lot of course but certainly more then 0 dollars the average clubs revenue was over 350K last year, they don't pay players because the league is controlled by yanks who raid the leagues players under amateur status so they don't need to buyout contracts.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Perhaps I should clarify...
The AFL have decided to put together a national women's football league.
Each team will have two marquee players that will be paid $25k, the rest will be paid $5k. I am assuming that they would anticipate that by forming this league will encourage girls/women to play football now that the competition will be national.
If there is sufficient interest and the games attracts crowds (Saturday's game attendance will be interesting) it will in turn attract sponsors.
I just think that unless you are one of the marquee players, $5k doesn't seem like a lot.
Think it is a very low base.
Not sure how many games there will be but assuming 10, $250 per game doesn't seem like a lot when you consider the clubs are the ones that will be incurring the majority of costs.
If they want to attract female players to take up the game professionally, they could offer a little more.

if it gains popularity they should bloody well offer more, thats things work and i'd support any Womens AFLPA in demanding more if that occurs.

 

[Jello_B]

You aren't the only one that has worked in a business.

Your anecdote is not the sum total of all data.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

But yet no one has advised of a business where they have worked where a woman has been discriminated on monetary return. The best example I have seen on here is the bonus. Why aren't people posting examples?

 

[Jello_B]

So AFL teams not making money should have their salary cap slashed accordingly?

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

This is the dumbest post on bf, and I have read the Islam thread.

 

[Jello_B]

You cannot compare on the scoreboard unless it is like for like.

You could put a female sprinter up against a male sprinter. Woman starts flawlessly, has perfect form all the way to the end and finishes in a female World record. Guy starts slowly, has sloppy form, and trails all the way before just overpowering her on the finish line with a decent but unexceptional time for a guy. He wins and gets a better time, and this makes him faster, but does it make him better?

If you wanted your kid trained to sprint, do you want the technically perfect World beating woman, or the technically poor, bog standard male?

You know why boxing sometimes describes boxers as being the pound for pound best in the world? It acknowledges them as being better than boxers who they couldn't beat because they are in a heavier class.

Women competing against men are always competing 4 or 5 divisions up.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure if this beats it but it comes close.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

You aren't the only one that has worked in a business.

Your anecdote is not the sum total of all data.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

and again i ask for examples of actual businesses operating in Australia who are actively or passively discriminating against women on the basis of pay.
Once again such conduct is illegal lets go after these campaigners.

 

[jatz14]

I'm not sure if this beats it but it comes close.

Aww shucks, 2 compliments in a row, I am blushing.

 

[DemonTim]

So AFL teams not making money should have their salary cap slashed accordingly?

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

The AFL players get most of their payments from the TV rights deals, so your point is non existent

If you want to look at what happens to players at top levels when their club stops making money, look at Frankston in the VFL

Your line of argument seems to be implying that they're only paid less because they're women though

 

[Rob]

You cannot compare on the scoreboard unless it is like for like.

You could put a female sprinter up against a male sprinter. Woman starts flawlessly, has perfect form all the way to the end and finishes in a female World record. Guy starts slowly, has sloppy form, and trails all the way before just overpowering her on the finish line with a decent but unexceptional time for a guy. He wins and gets a better time, and this makes him faster, but does it make him better?

Uh.....yes. The sole determinant of quality in sprinting is speed. If you are slower, you are not as good. It doesn't matter the reasons for that.

If you wanted your kid trained to sprint, do you want the technically perfect World beating woman, or the technically poor, bog standard male?

You know why boxing sometimes describes boxers as being the pound for pound best in the world? It acknowledges them as being better than boxers who they couldn't beat because they are in a heavier class.

Women competing against men are always competing 4 or 5 divisions up.

I realise that, but just about everyone acknowledges that women, when it comes to a vast majority of sports, are simply incapable physiologically of being as good, at least when you compare elite women against elite men.

I don't think i've ever seen someone try and argue that they actually are just as good despite getting comprehensively walloped in every objective measure relative to the sport. They might train as hard (or even harder) but in the real world, but you don't get paid based on how hard you train. In sport, you get paid to perform.

 

[Maggie5]

if it gains popularity they should bloody well offer more, thats things work and i'd support any Womens AFLPA in demanding more if that occurs.

Which is why I wanted to clarify because in fact it seems to me they are so excited, they would play for nothing.
Just realised that in addition to playing for that amount, on top of that a set amount of hours (14?) to be available for marketing purposes.
Think that the AFL is getting a very good deal. Read somewhere that it works out at about $25.00 per hour.

 

[Farm Boy]

The AFL could have told the women to bugger of and start their own league, and the pay would have been nil or poor, but they didn't. The AFL as part of its strategic thinking has determined that a women's league is a key part of its strategy for growth and investment in the future.

I think it was a bad long term play by the women to directly involve the AFL - and go cap in hand to them. Could they have established the league without the assistance of the AFL? I would argue that they could.

My advice to them would have been to take the figure (amount) the AFL is going to assist them with, and go cap in hand to the Federal Government (with the AFL figure) - and ask the government to match that figure (I think they would have). Then once the league was established, then the women's league could have went to the AFL - and not cap in hand - but went to them with a valuable product. They could have sold partial rights to the AFL on their own terms - which would be much higher than the assistance they are currently receiving from the AFL, plus they would still have the proposed Federal assistance. It would have doubled their intake capacity and ensured they had more control over their product.

 

[coerced]

You cannot compare on the scoreboard unless it is like for like.

You could put a female sprinter up against a male sprinter. Woman starts flawlessly, has perfect form all the way to the end and finishes in a female World record. Guy starts slowly, has sloppy form, and trails all the way before just overpowering her on the finish line with a decent but unexceptional time for a guy. He wins and gets a better time, and this makes him faster, but does it make him better?

If you wanted your kid trained to sprint, do you want the technically perfect World beating woman, or the technically poor, bog standard male?

You know why boxing sometimes describes boxers as being the pound for pound best in the world? It acknowledges them as being better than boxers who they couldn't beat because they are in a heavier class.

Women competing against men are always competing 4 or 5 divisions up.

Sounds a bit like Futurama's joke that women's basketball is better to watch in spite of the fact they can't dunk, because they have good fundamentals.

 

[fleabitten]

 

[Maggie5]

I think it was a bad long term play by the women to directly involve the AFL - and go cap in hand to them. Could they have established the league without the assistance of the AFL? I would argue that they could.

My advice to them would have been to take the figure (amount) the AFL is going to assist them with, and go cap in hand to the Federal Government (with the AFL figure) - and ask the government to match that figure (I think they would have). Then once the league was established, then the women's league could have went to the AFL - and not cap in hand - but went to them with a valuable product. They could have sold partial rights to the AFL on their own terms - which would be much higher than the assistance they are currently receiving from the AFL, plus they would still have the proposed Federal assistance. It would have doubled their intake capacity and ensured they had more control over their product.

Susan Alberti Western Bulldogs Vice-President was the instigator:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-enough-for-womens-footy-20150424-1msqjv.html

Interesting to note that there appears some 194,000 female participants.

This is an interesting article also. I don't agree with a number of points but it is thought provoking.
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/new...ens-league-a-living-wage-20160831-gr5mow.html

 

[coerced]

It'd be nice if everyone who played competitive sport got a living wage, but only the very best do, and even then it's not much of a career for most.