Would you watch a televised national womens league

[Gus Poyet]

McLachlan still appears to be more savvy than his predecessors though, so you never know.

He may be savy but that won't help if the quality of play is a long, long way off being worthy of being televised as a national sport. Which is it at present.

 

[jatz14]

He may be savy but that won't help if the quality of play is a long, long way off being worthy of being televised as a national sport. Which is it at present.

It is chicken and egg though. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of elite sportswomen whose first passion was Footy, who are playing something else. The reason they are playing something else is when young, they looked at the future, and in footy saw nothing but playing on shitty muddy suburban grounds in a not very good suburban league, and then took another path. Which is a good part of the reason for the low standard.

The mere prospect of an elite AFL sanctioned national comp is bringing them back to the sport, and likely stopping sporty teenagers leaving.

 

[RAZ66]

It is chicken and egg though. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of elite sportswomen whose first passion was Footy, who are playing something else. The reason they are playing something else is when young, they looked at the future, and in footy saw nothing but playing on shitty muddy suburban grounds in a not very good suburban league, and then took another path. Which is a good part of the reason for the low standard.

The mere prospect of an elite AFL sanctioned national comp is bringing them back to the sport, and likely stopping sporty teenagers leaving.

If they align the women with mens teams they should play as double headers. I used to love going to the footy as a youngster and see three games played. Colts then Reserves and finally the League team. With AFL we now only get one game. So a womens league could fix part of that obsession for more football.

 

[jatz14]

Interesting to follow this up after the discussions about womens sport following the Matildas WC campaign.

Women cricketers will now get up to $17 000 for the domestic season, and if contracted to the national squad, will earn $50 000 plus tour payments. So the top female cricketers will be getting up to $85 000 plus.

Heard on grandstand that there are 9 netballers on $100 000 plus.

FFA is going to come under huge pressure to dramatically increase what the Matildas are payed following the scrutiny on what they get, verse what the men get. Especially considering the ratings they got Sunday.

The AFLs stated goal for the womens comp is to establish a world class elite national comp, can this be done with nothing but amateur players. How do you take part in a national sport comp if you are in full time work?

Socially, is the AFL going to be able to announce a brand new elite womens comp, and at the same time announce that the players will not be payed, or will be payed peanuts, without being laughed at by their competitors in the market for female sporting talent. There are a number of female cricketers currently playing footy, who have retainer contracts worth a few thousand with cricket. It is hard to avoid the view that part of the reason for cricket australia to pay retainers is to have first say. If footy and cricket clash, who do you go with if cricket is paying?

On the other hand, full time contracts to all the players in a 6 team comp would seem really expensive and undo-able.

They have a fine line to walk.

 

[Gus Poyet]

Interesting to follow this up after the discussions about womens sport following the Matildas WC campaign.

Women cricketers will now get up to $17 000 for the domestic season, and if contracted to the national squad, will earn $50 000 plus tour payments. So the top female cricketers will be getting up to $85 000 plus.

Heard on grandstand that there are 9 netballers on $100 000 plus.

FFA is going to come under huge pressure to dramatically increase what the Matildas are payed following the scrutiny on what they get, verse what the men get. Especially considering the ratings they got Sunday.

They only deserve to get paid if they themselves bring in money to the FFA.

What size crowds do they pull when playing here?

The AFLs stated goal for the womens comp is to establish a world class elite national comp, can this be done with nothing but amateur players. How do you take part in a national sport comp if you are in full time work?

The Irish have been doing it for a long time with their Gaelic sports.

Socially, is the AFL going to be able to announce a brand new elite womens comp, and at the same time announce that the players will not be payed, or will be payed peanuts, without being laughed at by their competitors in the market for female sporting talent. There are a number of female cricketers currently playing footy, who have retainer contracts worth a few thousand with cricket. It is hard to avoid the view that part of the reason for cricket australia to pay retainers is to have first say. If footy and cricket clash, who do you go with if cricket is paying?

On the other hand, full time contracts to all the players in a 6 team comp would seem really expensive and undo-able.

They have a fine line to walk.

It's not right to compare an international sport with a domestic one when making comparisons. Added the amount of cricketers that need to be paid would be a lot lower than for a football league. It's easy for cricket to cover the costs.

And how much should they get paid per game?

It would be a joke if these female footbalelrs whose playing levels are that of under 16 boys get paid more than local footballers who are far superior players.

 

[jatz14]

They only deserve to get paid if they themselves bring in money to the FFA.

What size crowds do they pull when playing here?

They pull a few thousand at most, few hundred often. Businesses frequently run operations at a loss now, for the strategic benefits later. Gold Coast and Western Sydney being a case in point. They will get paid because the FFA saw the interest that can be generated in the right circumstances. If they can turn the Matildas into recognisable names, and flow that on to the W-league, build from there.

The Irish have been doing it for a long time with their Gaelic sports.

Amateur in name only, it is still an expensive comp to run. People think the AFL shouldn't spent more than 75c on a womens comp, however what the AFL have said they want isn't coming cheap, and it isn't consistent with an amateur suburban footy league approach.

It's not right to compare an international sport with a domestic one when making comparisons. Added the amount of cricketers that need to be paid would be a lot lower than for a football league. It's easy for cricket to cover the costs.

And how much should they get paid per game?

It would be a joke if these female footbalelrs whose playing levels are that of under 16 boys get paid more than local footballers who are far superior players.

The first point of call to everyone who objects to a professional womens league is to compare them to men, ie If they couldn't beat an amateur mens team, they shouldn't be paid. They are not men, are not playing against men and their performance shouldn't be compared to men.

Serena Williams makes a great deal more money than the 200th ranked man, but couldn't beat him, this is because she is the elite tennis player in her gender, if the 200th ranked man wants to become higher paid than Serena, all he has to do is become the elite player in his gender.

If an bog standard dime a dozen male suburban footy player thinks its a joke that the best player in her gender may be paid more than him, his solution is obvious.

 

[CrowdedHouse]

The money and women's footy issue was raised last Friday on GPF.

Article also questions if the AFLPA will go into bat for the women.

http://www.[NB: girlsplayfooty doma...womens-footy-prepared-to-play-money-game.html

 

[Gus Poyet]

They pull a few thousand at most, few hundred often. Businesses frequently run operations at a loss now, for the strategic benefits later. Gold Coast and Western Sydney being a case in point. They will get paid because the FFA saw the interest that can be generated in the right circumstances. If they can turn the Matildas into recognisable names, and flow that on to the W-league, build from there.

What is the strategic benefit though?

Soccer has had massive participation numbers in juniors for years now. Fact is it doesn't translate into bums on seats and paying people through the gates.

The interest isn't the problem. The problem is nobody rates it enough to go watch it.

The same will happen with a womens AFL league.

Amateur in name only, it is still an expensive comp to run. People think the AFL shouldn't spent more than 75c on a womens comp, however what the AFL have said they want isn't coming cheap, and it isn't consistent with an amateur suburban footy league approach.

No, Amatuer as in the players don't get paid to play at all. They all have full time jobs outside of their sport.

The first point of call to everyone who objects to a professional womens league is to compare them to men, ie If they couldn't beat an amateur mens team, they shouldn't be paid. They are not men, are not playing against men and their performance shouldn't be compared to men.

The comparison is to highlight that fact that if you expect people to be paid a wage that allows them to train full time you don't serve up a product that is way below a local standard.

Why would people go pay to watch something substandard? The whole premice of just pouring good money into something thats never going to provide a return on the investment is bad bad business.

Serena Williams makes a great deal more money than the 200th ranked man, but couldn't beat him, this is because she is the elite tennis player in her gender, if the 200th ranked man wants to become higher paid than Serena, all he has to do is become the elite player in his gender.

If an bog standard dime a dozen male suburban footy player thinks its a joke that the best player in her gender may be paid more than him, his solution is obvious.

She shouldn't earn as much for winning Wimbledon playing three sets compared to someone who might have to play 5 sets to win it.

Let's not pretend she has the same pulling power crowd wise as the top male players.

The point is you're over paying for female footballers who don't deserve nor warrant the kind of money you think they should be paid to allow them to "get better" to move up from a u/16 level to u/18 level.

 

[jatz14]

What is the strategic benefit though?

Soccer has had massive participation numbers in juniors for years now. Fact is it doesn't translate into bums on seats and paying people through the gates.

The interest isn't the problem. The problem is nobody rates it enough to go watch it.

The same will happen with a womens AFL league.

You are assuming that they way it is now is the way it will always be, for both soccer and womens sport. The AFL is certainly not doing that for either. Female team sport is on a trajectory, where it is now is a temporary point in it getting from here to there. The question is, what 'there' looks like. What happens if AFL says soccer participation doesn't translate into bums on seats, now and fore ever, therefore it isnt worth bothering about. But soccer bums on seats continue to grow (as it has been), and passes NRL, (which it is close to doing). Ratings keep going up, kids keep playing soccer in increasing numbers (as they are), local footy clubs get squeezed for juniors (as they are). Then these kids on the back of climbing interest by TV and media (just following the bums on seats) start to make soccer their sport of choice, not just for playing, but supporting. At this point AFL may decide it has a problem worth acting on, but they will be at least a decade to late. They need to be acting now.

Apply the same logic to womens sports in general, crowds and tv coverage are still minuscule compared to mens, but theses small crowds are still setting records, and these records are being broken all over the world every year. The American womens soccer team has a higher profile than the mens team, the english womens soccer team drew a crowd of almost 50000 to a friendly game last year. They are possibly only a few years away from being able to fill Wembley stadium. If you had asked someone if this was possible just 5 years ago, likely answer would have been, no way.

If womens sport continues to grow and gets a toehold in television and sponsorship, then for the AFL, they have to be at the forefront. For this they have left the run 5 years to late, so they have a lot of ground to make up, that is why Gillon is pressing for 2017 as the go date rather than the previous 2020.

 

[jatz14]

No, Amatuer as in the players don't get paid to play at all. They all have full time jobs outside of their sport.

If by full time jobs, you mean a job organised by their club through their sponsors, that doesn't involve any actual work, then yes, they are amateur. Still paid a lot less than AFL players though. Incidentally, how many Aussies have switched to playing Gaelic.

Also on the topic of amateur, do you know how many of the women that played in, or coached in the last AFL exhibition game earn their coin through football?
Of the top of my head I can think of about 7 full time, and another handful that do part time bits and pieces. This is working at AFL clubs, state league clubs, the AFL itself, the WAFC etc. You may be right that the players in a national league get little or no pay, but I am willing to bet a good few of them will end up with jobs at the AFL or the clubs. More than 1 way to skin a cat, as the Irish are aware. There is just no way the AFL is letting the FFA, the Matildas and the W-league have a free swing at half the population.

 

[jatz14]

The comparison is to highlight that fact that if you expect people to be paid a wage that allows them to train full time you don't serve up a product that is way below a local standard.

Why would people go pay to watch something substandard? The whole premice of just pouring good money into something thats never going to provide a return on the investment is bad bad business.

You keep deciding the value of womens football by comparing it to mens football, there is no comparison. One of the F1 drivers did a lap of Bathurst in an F1, and smashed the times the V8s get. Do we now dismiss V8s at Bathurst as substandard. No one is going to describe the next V8 lap record as 'pretty s**t, not sure why they bother'. The only way to judge elite female performance is relative to standard female performance.

 

[jatz14]

She shouldn't earn as much for winning Wimbledon playing three sets compared to someone who might have to play 5 sets to win it.

Let's not pretend she has the same pulling power crowd wise as the top male players.

The point is you're over paying for female footballers who don't deserve nor warrant the kind of money you think they should be paid to allow them to "get better" to move up from a u/16 level to u/18 level.

But you agree she has pulling power. The WTA tour championship is a female only tournament and despite being limited to 8 singles players and I think 8 doubles teams, it has 6.5 Mill in prize money, and not a male player in sight. So even if you think female players are inferior, and do less work, they are able to generate the interest to justify their pay.

I do not know what a womens league will cost, or what (if) they will be paid, or how it will be structured, or what the quality will be. I do not know if it will be televised, or how many will watch. I do not know how much money it will lose, but I am pretty sure it will lose some.
I do know that the AFL will try, and should try, and they will do so because soon every serious sport in Australia will have a national womens league, because it is the fastest growing section of footy, and a national league is the missing component, because it is good social policy and the AFL needs to be seen as a good corporate citizen, because the battle for the next generation has moved to the hearts and minds of girls, and if the AFL does not fight that battle, it loses to the sports that will.

You however, seem to already know that they will be overpaid, and undeserving, and that there is no future, and no possibility of growing interest down the track. I am wondering how?

 

[Gus Poyet]

If by full time jobs, you mean a job organised by their club through their sponsors, that doesn't involve any actual work, then yes, they are amateur. Still paid a lot less than AFL players though. Incidentally, how many Aussies have switched to playing Gaelic.

Quite a few Aussies play Gaelic Football throughout Australia. In all states.

The Australian womens Gaelic Football players are of a higher football standard for their code than what I've seen running around in women's AFL games who are considred "the best".

Also on the topic of amateur, do you know how many of the women that played in, or coached in the last AFL exhibition game earn their coin through football?
Of the top of my head I can think of about 7 full time, and another handful that do part time bits and pieces. This is working at AFL clubs, state league clubs, the AFL itself, the WAFC etc. You may be right that the players in a national league get little or no pay, but I am willing to bet a good few of them will end up with jobs at the AFL or the clubs. More than 1 way to skin a cat, as the Irish are aware. There is just no way the AFL is letting the FFA, the Matildas and the W-league have a free swing at half the population.

We're talking about earning from playing, not outside work.

 

[Gus Poyet]

You keep deciding the value of womens football by comparing it to mens football, there is no comparison. One of the F1 drivers did a lap of Bathurst in an F1, and smashed the times the V8s get. Do we now dismiss V8s at Bathurst as substandard. No one is going to describe the next V8 lap record as 'pretty s**t, not sure why they bother'. The only way to judge elite female performance is relative to standard female performance.

You need to compare the two when you're asking people to go watch the game and pay for the right to watch them.

That's the actual goal I would have thought, to get paying customers to watch them?

If that is the goal then when the product you offer up is inferior even to local junior football why is it you think people will once again pay or attend in large numbers to watch the games?

After all, I assume it's going to be AFL money that is thrown at this, money which could be better spent on the actual league itself rather than some operation that will never contribute financially in a positive manner.

 

[Gus Poyet]

But you agree she has pulling power. The WTA tour championship is a female only tournament and despite being limited to 8 singles players and I think 8 doubles teams, it has 6.5 Mill in prize money, and not a male player in sight. So even if you think female players are inferior, and do less work, they are able to generate the interest to justify their pay.

Because of their looks. Be honest, women's tennis gets the most exposure it gets not because of how they play, but because a few of them are smokin hot looking.

Sharapova and the circus that followed her for years proved that.

I do not know what a womens league will cost, or what (if) they will be paid, or how it will be structured, or what the quality will be. I do not know if it will be televised, or how many will watch. I do not know how much money it will lose, but I am pretty sure it will lose some.

Lose some? It would lsoe a lot...

How will it ever turn a profit?

I do know that the AFL will try, and should try, and they will do so because soon every serious sport in Australia will have a national womens league, because it is the fastest growing section of footy, and a national league is the missing component, because it is good social policy and the AFL needs to be seen as a good corporate citizen, because the battle for the next generation has moved to the hearts and minds of girls, and if the AFL does not fight that battle, it loses to the sports that will.

You however, seem to already know that they will be overpaid, and undeserving, and that there is no future, and no possibility of growing interest down the track. I am wondering how?

Anything over $50 is overpaying them.

That bolded part is one of THE worst arguments people use.

Soccer has shitloads of young girls playing it, has for ages. The funny thing is that despite those numbers it has made almost no difference to A-League crowd sizes.

The vast majoirty of A-League crowds are still male.

Funnily enough AFL is one of the more female heavy sporting crowds in the world. None of which has been "lost" because there is no female football league.

There's already female football matches out there that women could go watch, they don't though, they just aren't interested in it is the bottom line.

 

[Seedsfan]

Do like the idea I don't want Collingwood to be forced to spend money on a women's side. A lot of clubs are already struggling financially add women's teams as part of the club will be a massive burden. There are women's leagues in every state and they are unable to get men or women interested in attending in a decent way

 

[jatz14]

Do like the idea I don't want Collingwood to be forced to spend money on a women's side. A lot of clubs are already struggling financially add women's teams as part of the club will be a massive burden. There are women's leagues in every state and they are unable to get men or women interested in attending in a decent way

What would attract them? Given a fair portion of the population would only be vaguely aware, or completely unaware female football was even played. A national comp would be part of the process of expanding awareness. I cannot imagine the AFL would forcing financially struggling clubs to pay for a womens team.

 

[jatz14]

That bolded part is one of THE worst arguments people use.

Soccer has shitloads of young girls playing it, has for ages. The funny thing is that despite those numbers it has made almost no difference to A-League crowd sizes.

The vast majoirty of A-League crowds are still male.

Funnily enough AFL is one of the more female heavy sporting crowds in the world. None of which has been "lost" because there is no female football league.

There's already female football matches out there that women could go watch, they don't though, they just aren't interested in it is the bottom line.

The assumption that because it hasn't happened yet means it cannot is one the AFL cannot afford to make. You only find out those sort of assumptions are wrong when it is to late to correct them.

The recent womens world cup final was watched by more people in the US than game 7 of of the NBA finals, and the final game of the baseball world series.

Even the broadcasters were taken completely by surprise. 5 years ago, the suggestion would have had people laugh in your face. This is a team that sometimes has practice matches against the boys 16 yo national team and always loses, yet 29 million people watched a team not as good as the boys team, go figure.

As for the bolded, no there really isn't, and the comparison is just lazy. You are arguing that because people do not watch an entirely suburban, amateur unprofessionally run, unadvertised womens footy league, that there is no possibility that people will watch a well run national professionally organised, promoted and supported league. People do not watch mens amateur leagues in any real numbers either, and didn't even before the AFL

 

[Seedsfan]

What would attract them? Given a fair portion of the population would only be vaguely aware, or completely unaware female football was even played. A national comp would be part of the process of expanding awareness. I cannot imagine the AFL would forcing financially struggling clubs to pay for a womens team.

No they will take more money of well run clubs to fund it. It is not something the game needs. Some games in an 18 team comp would be unwatchable.

 

[Seedsfan]

Also you find out about it the sameway you find out about any local footy side

 

[Gus Poyet]

The assumption that because it hasn't happened yet means it cannot is one the AFL cannot afford to make. You only find out those sort of assumptions are wrong when it is to late to correct them.

The recent womens world cup final was watched by more people in the US than game 7 of of the NBA finals, and the final game of the baseball world series.

We aren't the USA. To compare us to them is folly.

Even the broadcasters were taken completely by surprise. 5 years ago, the suggestion would have had people laugh in your face. This is a team that sometimes has practice matches against the boys 16 yo national team and always loses, yet 29 million people watched a team not as good as the boys team, go figure.

Actually I can figure it out easily. The US women's team gets exposure because they have a hot but mental goalkeeper in Hope Solo. Walking, talking headline.

They also have a long history of women's college soccer which gains it exposure.

I'd laugh in the face of people who would rather watch a game not because of the standard of the game but because of the gender playing it.

As for the bolded, no there really isn't, and the comparison is just lazy. You are arguing that because people do not watch an entirely suburban, amateur unprofessionally run, unadvertised womens footy league, that there is no possibility that people will watch a well run national professionally organised, promoted and supported league. People do not watch mens amateur leagues in any real numbers either, and didn't even before the AFL

Well done for finally getting there.

People won't watch a higher standard of the game at local level in any great numbers, so why spend millions on a standard of football that will never ever rival the elite game at the top?

Leave it a suburban amatuer pursuit which is where it's best suited.

 

[Gus Poyet]

What would attract them? Given a fair portion of the population would only be vaguely aware, or completely unaware female football was even played.

If people are only vageuly aware of it then you realise they actually aren't that into the sport or the concept?

It's so easy to find out where local games are.

 

[jatz14]

No they will take more money of well run clubs to fund it. It is not something the game needs. Some games in an 18 team comp would be unwatchable.

Never heard anyone mention 18 teams. Most quote 6, and even then, not by the 2017 Gillon wants, maybe 2018. Could see a third or fourth team for the exhibition games next year, and build of that.

 

[jatz14]

If people are only vageuly aware of it then you realise they actually aren't that into the sport or the concept?

It's so easy to find out where local games are.

Is that like the local mens games no one watches? Why would someone in to football, but who isn't bothered watching suburban mens football, seek out and watch women suburban football? There are a shitload of people who regard themselves as football fans who have never watched suburban football in their life. Their lack of interest in suburban womens footy means they can never have an interest in womens footy? but their lack of interest in mens suburban footy means??

Lots of people only vaguely aware of their local footy team are payed up AFL members, so they do seem to be in to both the sport and the concept of a national mens comp.

 

[Gus Poyet]

Is that like the local mens games no one watches? Why would someone in to football, but who isn't bothered watching suburban mens football, seek out and watch women suburban football? There are a shitload of people who regard themselves as football fans who have never watched suburban football in their life. Their lack of interest in suburban womens footy means they can never have an interest in womens footy? but their lack of interest in mens suburban footy means??

See you're not getting it.

There are people who watch local football, there are people who watch the higher level football.

All of which would be in direct competition to a women's league for spectator numbers. IF people were interested in watching women's football they woud not go to watch it over their other football interests because a) it's aof a lwoer standard and b) they have a far more emotional and vested interest in their other teams.

Lots of people only vaguely aware of their local footy team are payed up AFL members, so they do seem to be in to both the sport and the concept of a national mens comp.

And those people aren't going to stop watching their teams to go support a womens team. Especially if the games are on the same day or most likley weekend.