There is an article in the age at the moment by Larissa Nicholson
The AFL owes women so much more (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-afl-owes-women-so-much-more-20161015-gs35j1.html)
In this argument Larissa argues that women need to be paid more because women support the men's game, making up X% of the audience and volunteers etc.
Now, I don't disagree that women play a big part in the men's game (as all supporters and volunteers do), but I am not sure how that translates to more money being paid as wages to players.
Now this sounds harsh and it isn't meant disrespectfully, but isn't the AFL already committing more money than they are going to be able to be sure the game is able to generate? The men receive about 22% I believe of revenue at present (and are pushing for 25%), is it unreasonable to suggest that if women's football takes off like men's football has that it will attract more sponsorship, that it will attract more people through the gates and will make a significant difference to TV money, which will then see the women rewarded with better pay?
This isn't an equal opportunity thing, the money generated by the sport at present is generated because it is the best AFL competition in the world and as such there is money in it. For many years men were getting paid little or nothing also, until they started to attract more corporate/tv dollars.
I don't have a particular grudge against the women's game at all and I am absolutely all for the AFL investing money in it to give it what I would have thought was a considerable start, but much like the VFL, the SANFL, the WAFL and other competitions, I personally don't have any real major interest in it and I think it is generally like all sporting codes it is getting funding, but it also needs to start generating more funds if it wants to have more for the players.
I don't see that it is at all relevant the sex of the supporters or the volunteers when it comes to the distribution of funds, as they are choosing to invest in the men's version. If those same people choose to stop supporting the men's and instead put their dollars into the women's game then absolutely the distribution should (and will change).
At the moment, I am not sure why it isn't just a time to celebrate for those that are finally getting some good exposure for the sport they are passionate about.
Anyway interested in thoughts of others including just how many people know our players and are planning to go the women's league games (are they on separately or will they be double headers with men's games?). Is there going to be a separate membership and if there is... Will you be getting one?
EDIT: Before the insults come in, I suspect most will disagree with my opinion, which is fine it is an opinion, but I would feel exactly the same if men tried to start a national men's netball league (traditionally considered a women's only sport at the highest level) and get in on the money the game has started to attract. I also do tend to think enough people will get interested in the women's league that it may well end up doing well financially and I think if it does that will be great for them.
I think your mens salary figure is higher than it actually is. Although the AFLPA have been targetting 27% from memory, i think when they started it was 11-13%.
Even so, if we were to give the women the same % of revenue, we might find that they'd be earning less than what is currently being offered.
The AFL have brought this league forward as to not interfere with their regular lives. That is, they can still play footy for their regular clubs, are not deemed to be full time footballers, thus able to work outside of playing footy.
I would also be very surprised if they have to pay for their own boots by the team the season actually rolls around, potentially ditto insurance.
Yes, it is the first womens 'season' but in reality, it seems like more of a set of practice matches compared to what the league will become over the next 5-10 years IMO.
As for all the other things 'women do for the AFL', can't see how that is at all relevent. The AFL should probably pay VFL players more too. Umpires have only recently become full time. Its not about what gender they are, its about how they currently fit into the scheme of things.
Would it be better if the AFL paid them all 50k a year, with the competition struggling to pay for itself, folding and putting them all out of a job?
As the league grows, the salary will too. Same as the blokes.
Not this crap again.
The feminazis need to stop attacking every discrepancy with the equality argument.
There are some industries where women are promoted quicker than the average bloke because they are female and the industry is trying to promote equal employment opportunities.
I'm in IT and the fastest way to get promoted in this industry is simply to be female.
It's unfair.
I know people with credentials getting the snub whilst women from non IT background get into some seriously good jobs in the business analysis and project management streams.
Yes, it's a little too early to ask for a pay rise. Let's see what the product is like and what it can attract in terms of audience and sponsorship. Then, I'm sure that they will be paid what they're worth not what they think they're worth.
Exactly.
It's not a male/ female thing, its a market value thing.
The competition hasn't even begun.
Like any product it has to prove it's viable.
As it does this then the benefits will come for the players.
I expect that to happen and a salary package that is appropriate will follow.
Having said that, basic requirements like equipment and insurance should be a no-brainer.
Not this crap again.
The feminazis need to stop attacking every discrepancy with the equality argument.
There are some industries where women are promoted quicker than the average bloke because they are female and the industry is trying to promote equal employment opportunities.
I'm in IT and the fastest way to get promoted in this industry is simply to be female.
It's unfair.
I know people with credentials getting the snub whilst women from non IT background get into some seriously good jobs in the business analysis and project management streams.
LOL no crap, but maybe you can empathise with what women have been dealing with for a hundred odd years. It doesn't feel great being held back professionally because of your gender does it? You know what would be even worse? Doing the same job, but getting paid less.
The fact of the matter is, there are many local footballers getting paid more than the majority of the players in this womens league.
People need to stop seeing this as a situation where the players should be paid based on what they're bringing in. This is an investment, and like any investment, often your outlay is going to take some time before it's showing a return. Shortchanging players is only going to delay the development of the comp. The more talent you can bring in, the better the sport becomes. Unfortunately for a number of players, the financial support the AFL are offering isn't enough to disrupt their current professional lives.
No one is suggesting that these players get paid the same as their male counterparts yet, but why shouldn't the best players in the game be getting at least the same amount as an AFL rookie?
With regards to mateinone's original question, I for one will be supporting the comp. I'll buy an additional membership, go to the games and have already contributed to Carlton's Game Changers initiative. I see this as something far more important than just football though. It's finally providing young girls a pathway to achieve professional success in a team sport in Australia. I just wish I was 15 years younger (and had a load more talent) so I would have something to aspire to myself.
Empathise with women? Wash your mouth out!
The short season makes it a little hard to compare pay packets but it seems to me that the lower paid players should definitely get more. It doesn't seem that they will break even given lost income from their normal employment.
A little more investment would provide fairer reimbursement and encourage more interest from professional sportswomen and, more importantly, aspiring professional sportswomen.
LOL no crap, but maybe you can empathise with what women have been dealing with for a hundred odd years. It doesn't feel great being held back professionally because of your gender does it? You know what would be even worse? Doing the same job, but getting paid less.
Last year the girls got nothing!
The fact of the matter is, there are many local footballers getting paid more than the majority of the players in this womens league.
Not many though, often the ones that do are Ex.AFL players who pull in the crowds or guns who help clubs win flags. Being just a player in a team doesn't count for much in terms of wages, the players getting not much train just as hard as the marque players, and last year the girls got nothing!
People need to stop seeing this as a situation where the players should be paid based on what they're bringing in. This is an investment, and like any investment, often your outlay is going to take some time before it's showing a return. Shortchanging players is only going to delay the development of the comp. The more talent you can bring in, the better the sport becomes. Unfortunately for a number of players, the financial support the AFL are offering isn't enough to disrupt their current professional lives.
I'm sad for those players who cannot commit, but where does the money come from?
Most people who make it in sport start off life as beggars, they have to take their chances, I know plenty of young guys who would quit their jobs and finance it themselves if they were able to get such an opportunity that the girls are getting.
For guys AFL is elite not developmental, I know guys who would pay for the chance that the girls are getting paid for!
No one is suggesting that these players get paid the same as their male counterparts yet, but why shouldn't the best players in the game be getting at least the same amount as an AFL rookie?
Current AFL Rookies and those players at lower levels getting the big money work and train 48 weeks of the year, they get four weeks off and are expected to do their own training in the off period. Even at the higher amateur levels Pre-season starts in a week or two. The girls whole contracted season goes for about 6 months(Including Pre-Season) with at most about a dozen games.
I'm all for the girls comp, but it's way too early to be putting out their hand for big money, they are entertainers in an entertainment industry and you don't get the big money before you become a star! But I concede the AFL should make an effort to cover some of the girls costs, perhaps they need to subsidise accommodation and the like.
With regards to mateinone's original question, I for one will be supporting the comp. I'll buy an additional membership, go to the games and have already contributed to Carlton's Game Changers initiative. I see this as something far more important than just football though. It's finally providing young girls a pathway to achieve professional success in a team sport in Australia. I just wish I was 15 years younger (and had a load more talent) so I would have something to aspire to myself.
The girls have this inherent problem, most women who watch AFL are not interested in watching them!
It's really only football tragics like myself that are interested in watching all levels of football. We are a very very small minority and if we are the only fans they are likely to regularly attract they won't be earning a lot of money.
LOL no crap, but maybe you can empathise with what women have been dealing with for a hundred odd years. It doesn't feel great being held back professionally because of your gender does it? You know what would be even worse? Doing the same job, but getting paid less.
Yes I empathise with it, but that doesnt make it right, and people fighting for true equality would never, ever respond with this kind of response.
This is an issue in many facets, not just gender. Sexual orientation, minority background et al, all need to stop being seen for what they are, and what skills and qualifications they bring to the table. That is how you promote equality.
At the end of the day, the boys club is an exclusive group of boys, and this argument has become very skewed over the last 2 decades. This situation is much more even than it used to be.
The fact of the matter is, there are many local footballers getting paid more than the majority of the players in this womens league.
The AFL have reiterated that this is a starting point. You can't go from 0 to 100 without a little bit of give and take regarding sacrifice. At the moment, the pie of cash will be unfairly split up, and thats necessary to grow the womens AFL competition.
Comparing local footballers to the players in the womens league is a misnomer. These competitions have revenue streams, established sponsorship bases, and competition growth that pre exists the AFL in most cases.
People need to stop seeing this as a situation where the players should be paid based on what they're bringing in. This is an investment, and like any investment, often your outlay is going to take some time before it's showing a return. Shortchanging players is only going to delay the development of the comp. The more talent you can bring in, the better the sport becomes. Unfortunately for a number of players, the financial support the AFL are offering isn't enough to disrupt their current professional lives.
All sports in every walk of life have been at this level. This doesnt make it right, but it means that the starting point for growth is lower. i.e. the womans national soccer team was getting on average I think it was $500 per match and funded their own way to the World Cup just last year. Thats not right, its a massive discrepancy in pay point, but due to being in the proffesional era of sport, people dont recognise that the males were doing this up until 30 years ago. Those competitions have grown over the last 100 years, and operational models have changed immensely for that revenue stream to be achieved and yes it did happen quickly, but not so quickly that proffesional womens football has been around long enough to have sourced that income stream. In some cases its getting there, and I am all for it.
No one is suggesting that these players get paid the same as their male counterparts yet, but why shouldn't the best players in the game be getting at least the same amount as an AFL rookie?
At the moment, if you take gender out of the equation (necessary to evaluate a fairness model) to mount this argument, you need to establish that they are doing the same amount of work over the same period of time.
i.e. an AFL rookie will present for pre season training starting in November at the latest. They will be treated identically to a full time AFL player. Their season and preparation will last until the following september 30 dead line as the earliest stopping point. Currently, an AFL womens player, will be operating a program for not even one half of that time at most, and will also be elligible to participate at the other level of competition to earn another income playing the sport. Straight away, we are not comparing apples with oranges, and thats why their pay is not equal. In time, it should flip where women at the pinnacle of the womens game is paid more than the average mens rookie, but that will take time.
With regards to mateinone's original question, I for one will be supporting the comp. I'll buy an additional membership, go to the games and have already contributed to Carlton's Game Changers initiative. I see this as something far more important than just football though. It's finally providing young girls a pathway to achieve professional success in a team sport in Australia. I just wish I was 15 years younger (and had a load more talent) so I would have something to aspire to myself.
+1, I would love to see the future of the female's game taken care of and with any luck the corporate sponsorship that comes with it, will grow to a level where the supporter base is irrelevant (kind of like the AFL version, I dont think bums on seats are necessary for the AFL to turn a profit thanks to tv rights, and sponsorship) but I don't think the two should be compared in anyway shape or form from a salary perspective until we get to the same level of sized income streams.
My initial response, may have come across sounding mysoginistic, but I for one am fed up with the faux equality that gets raised these days.
Check your priviledge has been mentioned to me at times.
In reality, I see this over correction in the equality argument, which leads me to believe that the wrong lessons have been learned. Make a woman a president, appoint one to management position, and then continue as we used to with jobs for the boys (yes it hurts males too) and no one can say anything because we have hired a token person from any group to explain away any questioning.
The lesson to be learned is, assess your prospective employees based on merit, and equality will be achieved moving forward.
LOL no crap, but maybe you can empathise with what women have been dealing with for a hundred odd years. It doesn't feel great being held back professionally because of your gender does it? You know what would be even worse? Doing the same job, but getting paid less. [\quote] Yes I empathise with it, but that doesnt make it right, and people fighting for true equality would never, ever respond with this kind of response.
Come on now, that's being petty. Suggesting that my response means I don't fight for true equality, simply because I highlighted the irony in the injustice you're feeling in your profession is just ridiculous.
I agree that a person should be selected for any position based on merit, but you're over simplifying a very complicated issue. When you're trying to level a playing field that's been uneven for almost as long as it's existed, you need to take considered actions to help facilitate a change.
In 50 years time we'll look back an wonder what all the fuss was about, people will be employed/promoted based on their skill and experience. Gender, race, sexuality and whatever else becomes an issue between now and then won't matter. But as we stand, people have been held back and disadvantaged for these issues, and organisations should be socially conscious about making that change. I do however share your concerns about organisations that select their 'token female/person of colour/gay etc.' and then do nothing else about closing the gap of disadvantage. But we can't simplify the situation as just 'pick based on merit' when all people haven't been given the same opportunity to earn that merit.
Well said Ms Maven.
Come on now, that's being petty. Suggesting that my response means I don't fight for true equality, simply because I highlighted the irony in the injustice you're feeling in your profession is just ridiculous.
I agree that a person should be selected for any position based on merit, but you're over simplifying a very complicated issue. When you're trying to level a playing field that's been uneven for almost as long as it's existed, you need to take considered actions to help facilitate a change.
Ill agree to disagree with you. The playing field will never be level, because people feel reparations need to be made. Perhaps I should keep that in mind next time I feel agrieved to work with someone who is there because reparations must be made, rather than earning their position on merit.
In 50 years time we'll look back an wonder what all the fuss was about, people will be employed/promoted based on their skill and experience. Gender, race, sexuality and whatever else becomes an issue between now and then won't matter. But as we stand, people have been held back and disadvantaged for these issues, and organisations should be socially conscious about making that change. I do however share your concerns about organisations that select their 'token female/person of colour/gay etc.' and then do nothing else about closing the gap of disadvantage. But we can't simplify the situation as just 'pick based on merit' when all people haven't been given the same opportunity to earn that merit.
Again, I dont think we will ever get there.
Reparations must be made, resentment will be bred, reparations will need to made again.
Ill leave you with something.
Ill quote Hilary. We made one big crack in that glass ceiling. She is a member of the ruling elite. You know, those people who have a massive opportunity to earn something that the average person doesnt like the presidency.
Equality is a goal we will simply never reach. Class division ensures it.
Well said Ms Maven.
X2
It's hard to believe that women couldn't work in certain occupations and married women had a separate, low return superannuation scheme when I first entered the workforce. We've come a long way but there's still a long way to go to get to a workforce that's free of discrimination.
Come on now, that's being petty. Suggesting that my response means I don't fight for true equality, simply because I highlighted the irony in the injustice you're feeling in your profession is just ridiculous.
I agree that a person should be selected for any position based on merit, but you're over simplifying a very complicated issue. When you're trying to level a playing field that's been uneven for almost as long as it's existed, you need to take considered actions to help facilitate a change.
In 50 years time we'll look back an wonder what all the fuss was about, people will be employed/promoted based on their skill and experience. Gender, race, sexuality and whatever else becomes an issue between now and then won't matter. But as we stand, people have been held back and disadvantaged for these issues, and organisations should be socially conscious about making that change. I do however share your concerns about organisations that select their 'token female/person of colour/gay etc.' and then do nothing else about closing the gap of disadvantage. But we can't simplify the situation as just 'pick based on merit' when all people haven't been given the same opportunity to earn that merit.
Not in a new market with no established business model, they will start from scratch like anybody else!
No one is suggesting that these players get paid the same as their male counterparts yet, but why shouldn't the best players in the game be getting at least the same amount as an AFL rookie?
OK, first things first. I am behind the womens league 100%. I am all for them getting more money in the future and agree its a bit stiff now. But you gotta start somewhere and you are never going to get everyone agreeing on what that should be. Having said that...
Just curious as to why you choose AFL rookie as an equivalent. Nowadays rookies are only just behind the draftees in terms of minimum salary.
I'll answer your question with a question.
Wimbledon. Girls get paid the same as the guys. At least the winners do, not sure about place getters etc.
Q:Is that fair?
A:No.
Explanation....
The women are on court less than the men because they play best of 3 sets. Men play best of 5.
Its the same thing with the AFL.
The womens league is only a 6 month season, and i'm tipping they won't have the same demands put on them as the rookies do. Not even close.
OK, first things first. I am behind the womens league 100%. I am all for them getting more money in the future and agree its a bit stiff now. But you gotta start somewhere and you are never going to get everyone agreeing on what that should be. Having said that...
Just curious as to why you choose AFL rookie as an equivalent. Nowadays rookies are only just behind the draftees in terms of minimum salary.
I'll answer your question with a question.
Wimbledon. Girls get paid the same as the guys. At least the winners do, not sure about place getters etc.
Q:Is that fair?
A:No.
Explanation....
The women are on court less than the men because they play best of 3 sets. Men play best of 5.
Its the same thing with the AFL.
The womens league is only a 6 month season, and i'm tipping they won't have the same demands put on them as the rookies do. Not even close.
I chose the rookie as the lowest paid player on an AFL list. The lowest paid player in the AFL is earning more than double the proposed figure of the highest paid womens player, and over 11 times more than the regular draftees.
Even with your argument of the women only doing a 6 month season compared to the men doing 10, that still doesn't add up. And $5000 for 6 months work, that's absurd. I know that the women will have added flexibility to work on top of playing, but their options will be limited given they'll need to find a job to fit around their training and travel commitments for half of the year.
I don't agree with the argument of equal pay for equal play when it isn't the players dictating how long their season is. I have no doubt that all of these players would make the same commitment in terms of time as the men if given that option. I dare say most of the players will also play for their regular clubs throughout winter also (for no monetary return).
As for Wimbledon, I agree in part to what you're saying, however I don't think the women should be paid less, simply they should play 5 sets also.
I am not sure why the rookie argument is relevant either. There are different levels of professional sport and because men's AFL is very successful, being the highest attended regular spectator sport in Australia by a fair margin, they are now able to pay what they can, but for all the kids drafted, there are 1000s each year whose dream is also ended and they go on to play for a league that is less commercial and therefore they get paid much less (if local football, perhaps hundreds a game.
Now I know that this competition is the elite competition in Australia and there are come really talented ladies out there, but to be elite in Women's AFL, where as a percentage would you need to fit among the active senior players? What about for men?
In essence, due to where the competition sits it has to be far easier to compete in the Women's AFL competition compare to the men's.
The AFL did not have to do this, there was nothing stopping them from saying... The women are welcome to run an alternate competition without any restrictions from the AFL. It is embracing it and committing large chunks of money and as many have stated if the competition is viable, the money will come.
The other arguments both sides are having on the equality in the work place are not really relevant to this. This was a standalone competition the same way the women's netball competition is and so women have not been underpaid in it.
Fair points NM.
In respect of Tennis, do you look at number of sets or time spent on court ? Should a male player who blitzes everyone in straight sets in 90 minutes (and thereby never plays five sets) be paid less than a female player who slogs it out in best of 3 sets matches that go over 2 hours ?
The point is that true parity is probably never obtainable in a way that satisfies everyone, but real efforts need to be made to even things up.
Male tennis players I have heard make the argument that it comes down to ticket sales and tv ratings - i.e men's tennis is the bigger draw card on both metrics, and therefore deserves the bulk of the loot.
Also, why is the length of the competition, be it tennis or football relevant?
Surely it is the commercial aspects that determine the finances. I bet Victoria Secret models earn more than whatever the male equivalent do, why? Because they also bring in more money for their brand.
If women's tennis brings in the same amount of money as men's, then absolutely they should be paid the same, whether they play best of one set or best of 9. Otherwise, no they don't (of and it is the same reversed).
If 90,000 start attending women's games and 5-10,000 attend men's game, then I won't be calling on parity of pay there. In England players playing in the Premier League get paid astronomically more than players in the next level league or women's league or in fact in most other leagues around the globe, why? Because they bring in the income to support the clubs paying those wages.
I chose the rookie as the lowest paid player on an AFL list. The lowest paid player in the AFL is earning more than double the proposed figure of the highest paid womens player, and over 11 times more than the regular draftees.
The lowest paid AFL rookie earns about four or five times the highest paid VFL player, but for now the VFL will draw far more spectators than AFLW will.
In the short term the best the AFLW can expect is to be curtain raisers, but for that to happen the AFL and clubs must spend big money on facilities and marketing. In the long term the money will improve, and it's bad luck for those getting in early, but it's always that way for a new commercial sport. There may be long term careers in AFLW open to the early participants, but it's certainly the case late comers will earn more.
Still I reiterate my earlier point, there are guys who would pay for this opportunity. Why are there people trying to scupper the AFLW process before it gets off the ground?
Half the girls haven't even signed on the line yet and the complaints are rising, perhaps the wage is deliberately set low to weed out those only in it for the money versus those who really love the sport.
Also, why is the length of the competition, be it tennis or football relevant?
Surely it is the commercial aspects that determine the finances. I bet Victoria Secret models earn more than whatever the male equivalent do, why? Because they also bring in more money for their brand.
Why is it relevent? Because its sports.
Victoria secret models? Really?? WHy not shoot straight to 'ladies of the night'?! ::)
I chose the rookie as the lowest paid player on an AFL list. The lowest paid player in the AFL is earning more than double the proposed figure of the highest paid womens player, and over 11 times more than the regular draftees.
Even with your argument of the women only doing a 6 month season compared to the men doing 10, that still doesn't add up. And $5000 for 6 months work, that's absurd. I know that the women will have added flexibility to work on top of playing, but their options will be limited given they'll need to find a job to fit around their training and travel commitments for half of the year.
I don't agree with the argument of equal pay for equal play when it isn't the players dictating how long their season is. I have no doubt that all of these players would make the same commitment in terms of time as the men if given that option. I dare say most of the players will also play for their regular clubs throughout winter also (for no monetary return).
As for Wimbledon, I agree in part to what you're saying, however I don't think the women should be paid less, simply they should play 5 sets also.
As i said, i agree the money is a bit stiff, but nobody is forcing them to take it. They are not slaves and are making a choice of their own free will.
They are doing so knowing they are likely to earn more in the future.
Don't forget it was in our lifetime that the men had to have a job outside of football to support themselves.
Why is it relevent? Because its sports.
Victoria secret models? Really?? WHy not shoot straight to 'ladies of the night'?! ::)
Because they are elite at their profession and train like hell to get those roles in an extremely competitive world.
I chose a field that is competitive and mainly women are paid much more than men.
In no way whatsoever was it derogatory to women or a suggestion that it was what women should do or anything.
I honestly completely respect what most of those women have to do to be at the top of their game there as well as an aside.
It doesn't matter if sports or not Kruddler, Ultra Marathon runners train an incredible number of hours as to open water marathon swimmers.
It doesn't translate to dollars even for the elite as their is not enough interest to generate the sponsorship and income.
Twenty 20 cricket brings in more money than any other form, there isn't an argument that players should get paid more for 50 over cricket is there?
The public interest is what should determine the money.
Being elite alone doesn't ask many Olympic athletes.
Can you imagine the outcry if a player like Cripps wanted to play professional cricket as well as AFL and was hit on the head by a bouncer ending his football career?
While I'm all for equality, it comes at a price that some of the girls seem reluctant to pay.
Having signed contracts that require them to focus on their chosen professional commitment some are now having difficulty accepting that if you are an AFLW, FA or BBL professional you cannot also be a professional in a second sport. They seem parallised by the need to make a choice, but that is not the sport's problem it's the sportsperson's problem!
If you are a male that is accepted, why should professional women's sport be any different, why is anyone even posing this question?
I find this demoralising, because I am an advocate for women's sport but it seems to be a common thread that some on the women's side of sport want to have their cake and eat it as well. All want to be recognised as professional, on professional money with a professional profile, but some want to retain their amateur freedoms.
Not matter what sex you are, if you make yourself difficult to deal with your opportunities will be limited. Your professional worth is affected by your personal choices.
The AFLW has carefully structured the season to allow professional basketballers, athletes, soccer players, cricketers, etc to continue with their primary sport. For example, I heard Kim Mickle explain how the footy season would finish in time for her to return to athletics training in a bid to get to the next Commonwealth Games (she will be a one season player, unless her athletics career falters).
AFLW contracts allow for termination if players are injured playing their other sport.
If or perhaps when the AFL becomes a fulltime occupation, it would be appropriate to require players to focus entirely on footy. Until then, female footballers should be free to devote time to their other sports.
The AFLW has carefully structured the season to allow professional basketballers, athletes, soccer players, cricketers, etc to continue with their primary sport. For example, I heard Kim Mickle explain how the footy season would finish in time for her to return to athletics training in a bid to get to the next Commonwealth Games (she will be a one season player, unless her athletics career falters).
AFLW contracts allow for termination if players are injured playing their other sport.
If or perhaps when the AFL becomes a fulltime occupation, it would be appropriate to require players to focus entirely on footy. Until then, female footballers should be free to devote time to their other sports.
This
If or perhaps when the AFL becomes a fulltime occupation, it would be appropriate to require players to focus entirely on footy. Until then, female footballers should be free to devote time to their other sports.
Have I confused this situation, I wasn't referring to amateur sport like athletics.
This isn't just an AFLW driven issue, although the AFLW may be the cause due to the way the contracts are written.
It seems the other professional sports, BBL, FA, Netball, Basketball, Rugby are requiring players to sign waivers excluding them from playing or training in the AFLW at the same time they are employed as professionals in the other sport.
But it seems entirely fair to me that most sports are seasonal regardless of whether they are professional or not, and that the off-season of a professional sportsperson doesn't allow you to be professional in another sport.
There are some weasel words floating around in this regard, with AFLW being touted as "semi-professional" in one context and "professional" in another. The other sports seem to be taking the position that professional is professional, even if they pay less than the AFLW.
This reminds me of Ellyse Perry situation a couple of years back.
Surely they have to make a choice!
If I as a supporter, or as a sponsor, put money into the AFLW, I do not expect that money to subsidise the players participation in another sport. I gather the other sports think that way as well.
Have I confused this situation, I wasn't referring to amateur sport like athletics.
This isn't just an AFLW driven issue, although the AFLW may be the cause due to the way the contracts are written.
It seems the other professional sports, BBL, FA, Netball, Basketball, Rugby are requiring players to sign waivers excluding them from playing or training in the AFLW at the same time they are employed as professionals in the other sport.
But it seems entirely fair to me that most sports are seasonal regardless of whether they are professional or not, and that the off-season of a professional sportsperson doesn't allow you to be professional in another sport.
There are some weasel words floating around in this regard, with AFLW being touted as "semi-professional" in one context and "professional" in another. The other sports seem to be taking the position that professional is professional, even if they pay less than the AFLW.
This reminds me of Ellyse Perry situation a couple of years back.
Surely they have to make a choice!
If I as a supporter, or as a sponsor, put money into the AFLW, I do not expect that money to subsidise the players participation in another sport. I gather the other sports think that way as well.
Only when the two sports' requirements are incompatible.
I'm not sure that athletics is amateur anymore, at the elite levels anyway. Kim Mickle implied that she would be remunerated for her athletics preparation but was looking forward to being paid to play footy.
If I remember the Ellyse Perry situation correctly, she ended up playing soccer for a club that could see the benefits of having her on board when she wasn't playing cricket.
I think that for the majority of AFLW players, footy is their second sport and many will drop out after a season or two. If it does develop (as I think it will), it will become increasingly difficult to combine it with another sport. I suspect the AFL realises that the AFLW will have to play second fiddle to other sports until such time as it becomes financially viable for women to focus solely on footy.
I remember reading that the coach of the Adelaide Breakers encouraged team members to put their hands up for the AFLW because he thought it would help their basketball.