Equal pay for Australia's soccer players

[Metaphor]

Gender pay gap closed as parity confirmed in new Matildas deal

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...osed-as-parity-confirmed-in-new-matildas-deal

Football Federation Australia and Professional Footballers Australia have detailed a landmark collective bargaining agreement that closes the pay gap between Australia’s national teams, the Socceroos and Matildas.

The new four-year CBA ensures the Socceroos and Matildas receive a 24% share of an agreed aggregate of national team generated revenues in 2019-20, rising by 1% each year.
...
Significantly for the Matildas, a new three-tiered centralised contract system will see Australia’s premier women footballers provided with increased annual salary from around $66,000 to $100,000 – the same amount as the top Socceroos.

Since the Socceroos (men) are now sharing the much higher revenue they generate with the women, I do hope the Matildas share some of the wealth with the under-15 boys who routinely beat the Matildas 7-0.

But I won't hold my breath.

 

[dismal]

The idea that there should be equality of pay for athletes in different competitions is ridiculous.

But then, the idea that there should be equality of pay for athletes in the same competition is ridiculous too.

It’s noy like LeBron James and Ryan Broekoff make the same.

 

[laughing dog]

Let me get this straight - you are whining about the Australian women getting the same share of their national team's revenue as the men? Currently the Australian men's team is ranked 44th in the world by FIFA while the Australian women's team is ranked 8th.

I think it is pretty pathetic to trot out something that occurred 3 years ago when discussing current levels of activity.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why pay athletes anything at all? That money could go to teachers or something.

 

[Metaphor]

Let me get this straight - you are whining about the Australian women getting the same share of their national team's revenue as the men?

No. Women previously got a 30% share of the revenue they generated by playing in the women's national team. Men also got a share (I don't know what) of the revenue they generated for playing in the men's national team.

But this new deal means that any revenue generated by either team will be put into a shared pool of revenue and paid out to the men's and women's team according to performance within their respective leagues, despite the revenue generated by men's soccer being approximately ten times as much as women's.

The women are being given charity.

 

[Metaphor]

Currently the Australian men's team is ranked 44th in the world by FIFA while the Australian women's team is ranked 8th.

I love it when heterosexual men understand even less about the sportball than I do.

Let the Socceroos play the Matildas for revenue generated by either team over the year. Winner takes all. After all, the Matildas are ranked 8th playing against other women, which means they are clearly better at soccer than the men.

It'll be a cinch.

 

[laughing dog]

Let me get this straight - you are whining about the Australian women getting the same share of their national team's revenue as the men?

No. Women previously got a 30% share of the revenue they generated by playing in the women's national team. Men also got a share (I don't know what) of the revenue they generated for playing in the men's national team.

But this new deal means that any revenue generated by either team will be put into a shared pool of revenue and paid out to the men's and women's team according to performance within their respective leagues, despite the revenue generated by men's soccer being approximately ten times as much as women's.

The women are being given charity.

This is an agreement reached between the employer and representatives of the mens and womens teams. According to your own link, the representatives of the mens teams are fine with this arrangement. It is pretty funny that you apparently feel you are more informed about the goals of Australian football and the relative contributions of the mens and womens teams than those who are actually involved.

There is no natural or legislature law nor moral imperative requiring anyone to be paid according to your views or according to their contributions to generating revenue.

Charity is in the eye of the beholder. But real charity requires that the beholders have at least one eye open.

 

[ruby sparks]

Gender pay gap closed as parity confirmed in new Matildas deal

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...osed-as-parity-confirmed-in-new-matildas-deal

Football Federation Australia and Professional Footballers Australia have detailed a landmark collective bargaining agreement that closes the pay gap between Australia’s national teams, the Socceroos and Matildas.

The new four-year CBA ensures the Socceroos and Matildas receive a 24% share of an agreed aggregate of national team generated revenues in 2019-20, rising by 1% each year.
...
Significantly for the Matildas, a new three-tiered centralised contract system will see Australia’s premier women footballers provided with increased annual salary from around $66,000 to $100,000 – the same amount as the top Socceroos.

Since the Socceroos (men) are now sharing the much higher revenue they generate with the women, I do hope the Matildas share some of the wealth with the under-15 boys who routinely beat the Matildas 7-0.

But I won't hold my breath.

Slightly controversial, yes, and you do have a point, but as usual I think you are over-reacting a bit.

For one thing, the commercial opportunities of women's football are largely untapped. This extra money could (and is partly intended to) lead to payback, literally. In other words, there's an investment aspect to this.

For example, in 1920, Everton Ladies team pulled in a crowd of 53,000 for a game. The current men's team gets 39,000, and they're playing in the top English League. 1920 was before the FA here effectively banned the women's professional game, by the way, so some of this is catch-up in general terms.

And the other thing to say is that if the men's team are supporting this, and the footballing authorities, maybe there are other aspects of it that you don't know about, and definitely views, including by those more directly involved, that are alternative to your somewhat knee-jerk negativism. Which I might add is incessant, in terms of the topics you choose to discuss ad nauseam.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let me get this straight - you are whining about the Australian women getting the same share of their national team's revenue as the men?

No. Women previously got a 30% share of the revenue they generated by playing in the women's national team. Men also got a share (I don't know what) of the revenue they generated for playing in the men's national team.

But this new deal means that any revenue generated by either team will be put into a shared pool of revenue and paid out to the men's and women's team according to performance within their respective leagues, despite the revenue generated by men's soccer being approximately ten times as much as women's.

The women are being given charity.

You poor triggered soul. Women football players, who play better in women football than Aussie men do in men football, getting paid the same. The horror. The travesty!

 

[Toni]

Let me get this straight - you are whining about the Australian women getting the same share of their national team's revenue as the men?

No. Women previously got a 30% share of the revenue they generated by playing in the women's national team. Men also got a share (I don't know what) of the revenue they generated for playing in the men's national team.

But this new deal means that any revenue generated by either team will be put into a shared pool of revenue and paid out to the men's and women's team according to performance within their respective leagues, despite the revenue generated by men's soccer being approximately ten times as much as women's.

The women are being given charity.

By out performing the men?

 

[Metaphor]

This is an agreement reached between the employer and representatives of the mens and womens teams. According to your own link, the representatives of the mens teams are fine with this arrangement. It is pretty funny that you apparently feel you are more informed about the goals of Australian football and the relative contributions of the mens and womens teams than those who are actually involved.

I didn't say the representatives were not 'fine' with it.

There is no natural or legislature law nor moral imperative requiring anyone to be paid according to your views or according to their contributions to generating revenue.

Someone being paid more than the revenue they generate is market distorting and destroys wealth.

Charity is in the eye of the beholder. But real charity requires that the beholders have at least one eye open.

I think more women and men who think female athletes should get paid the same as male ones, should go to women's games and boycott the male ones until parity is achieved in eyeballs and ticket sales and sponsorships. I think they should put their money where their mouth is.

Let's see if Johnny Public and Jane Normie give up the Superbowl.

 

[Metaphor]

Let me get this straight - you are whining about the Australian women getting the same share of their national team's revenue as the men?

No. Women previously got a 30% share of the revenue they generated by playing in the women's national team. Men also got a share (I don't know what) of the revenue they generated for playing in the men's national team.

But this new deal means that any revenue generated by either team will be put into a shared pool of revenue and paid out to the men's and women's team according to performance within their respective leagues, despite the revenue generated by men's soccer being approximately ten times as much as women's.

The women are being given charity.

By out performing the men?

How do we know that? They've never played the same teams. So, I propose that they play each other. Surely that's the fairest way to determine which team is in fact better at soccer?

 

[Metaphor]

Slightly controversial, yes, and you do have a point, but as usual I think you are over-reacting a bit.

I do wonder: what do you determine to be the correct level of reaction to the story? Obviously posting it, and making a single jab at the reasoning behind it is 'over-reacting'. Is the correct level never to post anything at all, so that talkfreethought only ever contains stories posted by the faithful and commented on by the faithful? I've seen Twitter feeds like that and it ain't interesting and it ain't fun.

For one thing, the commercial opportunities of women's football are largely untapped. This extra money could (and is partly intended to) lead to payback, literally. In other words, there's an investment aspect to this.

For the football federation, possibly. They're not really giving anything up - they'll just be transferring some of the money that would have gone to the men and paying it to the women. But it isn't an investment for the current male players, who will be 'investing' their paycut but never reap the benefits.

For example, in 1920, Everton Ladies team pulled in a crowd of 53,000 for a game. The current men's team gets 39,000, and they're playing in the top English League. 1920 was before the FA here effectively banned the women's professional game, by the way, so some of this is catch-up in general terms.

I don't see how a company can ban something unless they had political power.

And the other thing to say is that if the men's team are supporting this, and the footballing authorities, maybe there are other aspects of it that you don't know about, and definitely views, including by those more directly involved, that are alternative to your somewhat knee-jerk negativism. Which I might add is incessant, in terms of the topics you choose to discuss ad nauseam.

Yeah, you were saying before. I suggest putting me on 'ignore' then, as I'm not going to stop posting on topics I find interesting only to appease you.

 

[Metaphor]

Let me get this straight - you are whining about the Australian women getting the same share of their national team's revenue as the men?

No. Women previously got a 30% share of the revenue they generated by playing in the women's national team. Men also got a share (I don't know what) of the revenue they generated for playing in the men's national team.

But this new deal means that any revenue generated by either team will be put into a shared pool of revenue and paid out to the men's and women's team according to performance within their respective leagues, despite the revenue generated by men's soccer being approximately ten times as much as women's.

The women are being given charity.

You poor triggered soul. Women football players, who play better in women football than Aussie men do in men football, getting paid the same. The horror. The travesty!

I don't think it's being taken far enough. Why don't all national football teams get paid the same as each other? Why can't the World Cup prize money be shared equally with every team, and maybe the audience too?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

By out performing the men?

How do we know that? They've never played the same teams.

We could look and see the results in the World Cup.
Men's team: 2-4-10 -18 GD (12.5% winning rate) and, of note, notching wins over Japan and Serbia.
Women's team: 7-6-13 -12 GD (27% winning rate) and, of note, notching wins over Brazil / Norway and draws against Norway / China / Sweden

The Matildas have been in the last 7 World Cups, the Socceroos, the last 4.
The Matildas have been in the quarterfinals 3 times, the Socceroos have advanced to the Round of 16 once. Even the US men's team has made it to the quarterfinal once.

 

[Metaphor]

By out performing the men?

How do we know that? They've never played the same teams.

We could look and see the results in the World Cup.
Men's team: 2-4-10 -18 GD (12.5% winning rate) and, of note, notching wins over Japan and Serbia.
Women's team: 7-6-13 -12 GD (27% winning rate) and, of note, notching wins over Brazil / Norway and draws against Norway / China / Sweden

The Matildas have been in the last 7 World Cups, the Socceroos, the last 4.
The Matildas have been in the quarterfinals 3 times, the Socceroos have advanced to the Round of 16 once. Even the US men's team has made it to the quarterfinal once.

I'm not sure which part of "they've never played the same teams" you're confused about.

 

[Toni]

By out performing the men?

How do we know that? They've never played the same teams. So, I propose that they play each other. Surely that's the fairest way to determine which team is in fact better at soccer?

Why? Aren't all the teams working for the same federation? (honestly, I don't know the answer to that)

Do the teams within the federation compete with one another for their portion of the pay? (Again, I have no idea.)

I will say that it is obvious that some leagues are waking up to the fact that if they want to reach new fans, their best untapped pool of fans would be women and girls. One good way to attract fans--and money--is to develop the best female teams possible. And that means paying them well.

 

[Toni]

You poor triggered soul. Women football players, who play better in women football than Aussie men do in men football, getting paid the same. The horror. The travesty!

I don't think it's being taken far enough. Why don't all national football teams get paid the same as each other? Why can't the World Cup prize money be shared equally with every team, and maybe the audience too?

Yep, anything but paying women equally with the men.

 

[Metaphor]

By out performing the men?

How do we know that? They've never played the same teams. So, I propose that they play each other. Surely that's the fairest way to determine which team is in fact better at soccer?

Why? Aren't all the teams working for the same federation? (honestly, I don't know the answer to that)

Do the teams within the federation compete with one another for their portion of the pay? (Again, I have no idea.)

I will say that it is obvious that some leagues are waking up to the fact that if they want to reach new fans, their best untapped pool of fans would be women and girls. One good way to attract fans--and money--is to develop the best female teams possible. And that means paying them well.

Yes, all teams compete with other teams, that's how football works? I don't understand your question.

 

[Metaphor]

You poor triggered soul. Women football players, who play better in women football than Aussie men do in men football, getting paid the same. The horror. The travesty!

I don't think it's being taken far enough. Why don't all national football teams get paid the same as each other? Why can't the World Cup prize money be shared equally with every team, and maybe the audience too?

Yep, anything but paying women equally with the men.

If they competed equally and bought in the same revenue they'd deserve equal pay.

In other contexts, cross-subsidising one business with the revenues from another are usually regarded as anticompetitive.

But I'm sure in the near future, where women's soccer is more popular than men's, women all over the world will share their prize pools with men, because equal pay, or something.