hashtag #bootsoff

[Nasher 33,614]

On 16/10/2016 at 2:07 PM, DeeSpencer said:

Typical social justice types joining a useless social media campaign when you don't hear any of the players complaining.

Probably because they don't feel like the death threats, rape threats, being told they should just be grateful the men let them play their game etc.

[Little Goffy 14,527]

Part 1 - Fair Cut

Let's argue that the women players should get about the same share of total league revenue as the male players for the men's game, adjusted for their relative impact on that revenue.

So about 1/3rd ($180m salary cap, of $500m game revenue) of the value of the extra sponsorship, merchandising, advertising, TV rights, ticketing, memberships and so on that is generated by the women's league, should go to women players salaries.

Total number of women player's = about 250, if I recall correctly.

So, for every $1m the women's game is worth to revenue, there should be an average $1,250 pay per player. That's nice and simple.

As mentioned, the AFL is operating on a $500m/year revenue stream, so each 1% contribution of the women's game = $6,250 pay per player.

That's after discounting costs like insurance, physio, rehab, boots and all that jazz which women currently must cover from their own pocket.

 

Part 2 - Revenue real impact

Well, this part is hard to measure.

We have the example of the women's exhibition matches, including one of the most watched and most talked about free-to-air games of the 2016 season. The trouble being, it did have a very clear broadcast run on an otherwise football-free weekend. I'm not sure that can really tell us much.

So, let's just set some benchmarks and see what people's gut tells them.

A 1% increase in memberships is approximately 8,000 total, or slightly under 450 per club. (minus however many direct women's league memberships)

A 1% increase in attendances is approximately 68,000 for the year, or slightly under 350 per game. (again, minus women's league attendances)

A 1% increase in match viewership (combining free-to-air and Foxtel) is approximately 1 million total over the season. (ditto, " ", see above) (note: this is less than the viewer total for the pre-finals bye exhibition match)

To determine the women's league impact, obviously you'd have to combine the direct memberships/attendance/viewership for the women's league, and also estimate the flow-on effects of greater engagement and participation in the AFL overall, from people turning up to games right through to participation in Auskick.

Interestingly, the biggest impact could be up in Queensland and NSW, where Rugby League's noxious status for women could make the AFL's more welcoming culture and marquee women's league quite important for opening doors (and markets).

The final problem of course is that this is all at the point of 'start-up' and the investment could take some time to mature. Maybe the first-season women's league players should have a kind of 'stock option' as part of their pay. If their good work now sees the game climb, then they'll be able to cash in their 'share' three years from now when it is worth several times what it is now. Or, more simply, just paid a bit ahead of the curve for now. That's a 'game investment' policy debate, though.

 

Anyway, I've tried not to reach a conclusion in this post. Just tried to sort through what would be an absolutely ruthless commercial assessment, without considering any 'moral missions' that so upset the permanently offended types.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, stuie said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"It is significantly less than netballers playing in the new national league next year, who will earn a minimum wage of $27,375 and an average salary of $67,500."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/new-name-for-afl-womens-league-pay-negotiations-continue-20160915-grhdfj.html

There goes your arguments then old blokes.

 

Fledgling sport... Netball isn't one. 

 

[stuie 7,374]

1 hour ago, Stretch Johnson said:

Fledgling sport... Netball isn't one. 

 

Footy is a fledgling sport then?

 

[PartyTimeJohnny 537]

They really should be getting more than 5k. 
Sorry fellas. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, stuie said:

Footy is a fledgling sport then?

Disingenuous.   Professional women's football hasn't been done before. 

The money will be there soon enough if the league does as well as expected. 

[nutbean 8,838]

My view is posed as question - is there money in the kitty to pay more ? The comparisons to other sports and country leagues is disingenuous as the reason some athletes and country league footballs are paid a pittance is there is not the money to pay more.

It does have me scratching my head when you compare this situation to the AFL pouring millions into propping up Sydney, Gold Coast and GWS in the early days to ensure they were successful.

[jackaub 1,402]

8 hours ago, PartyTimeJohnny said:

They really should be getting more than 5k. 
Sorry fellas. 

And Who exactly is going to pay the extra dollars Part time, It has to be earnt and justified by the sponsors

I suggest they hire a marketing guru and get to work. Or are you suggesting some sort of Government hand out or cut the salarys of male players. Has to be paid for somehow.

[nutbean 8,838]

2 minutes ago, jackaub said:

And Who exactly is going to pay the extra dollars Part time, It has to be earnt and justified by the sponsors

I suggest they hire a marketing guru and get to work. Or are you suggesting some sort of Government hand out or cut the salarys of male players. Has to be paid for somehow.

The "who" is the AFL and the precedent is already there.

The AFL has never been shy in pumping money into "start ups" .

[jackaub 1,402]

Yes NB I understand that but the AFL  also have to earn the extra

I for one would fully support paying to see Womans football matches before  main games and hopefully they could build support and sponsorship and earn the dollars 

[nutbean 8,838]

15 minutes ago, jackaub said:

Yes NB I understand that but the AFL  also have to earn the extra

I for one would fully support paying to see Womans football matches before  main games and hopefully they could build support and sponsorship and earn the dollars 

I am only addressing the question of where the money will come from - China, Northern Territory, NZ, Qld ( suns and brisbane in their early days ), GWS  - the return on investment has been a negative. Some will argue shrewd investment for the future  - others will say peeing money up against a wall.

However there is a clear precedent of the AFL tipping money into loss making ventures with a plan ( in the hope) that there will a bigger payoff down the track. I don't see this as any different.  

As to the point that the AFL has to earn the extra - that has never been the way they operate. At no stage with the above ventures did they wait until the earned "more" before sinking money into them. The AFL has a huge pool money ( ever growing with the TV rights) and distribute it as they see fit.

 

(as to your point about womens matches before the main games - I commented that I would like to see half the banal entertainment scrapped on grand final day and have the women's GF played before the big game)  

Edited November 8, 2016 by nutbean

[Lucifers Hero 39,753]

40 minutes ago, jackaub said:

Yes NB I understand that but the AFL  also have to earn the extra

I for one would fully support paying to see Womans football matches before  main games and hopefully they could build support and sponsorship and earn the dollars 

The AFL are directly earning extra:  NAB is sponsoring the Women's game directly to the AFL, not the clubs and not the players.  The AFL also gets direct income from the TV rights, additional to the AFL normal season TV rights income.  Obviously the AFL won't disclose what the $ value of these are but I bet it will be many, many times the $1.5 in salaries to ALL the Women players for a season.

BTW the Women's season will be stand alone, played February to March so they will attract crowds, TV rights and sponsors, in their own right and not as pre-game entertainment for the AFL 'main' games. The money is there, it is a matter of the AFL doing the right thing.

[Lucifers Hero 39,753]

The AFL spend mega millions on 'staging' peripheral events eg draft night, Hall of Fame night, AA night etc and AFL CEO/Commission travel/overseas 'study' trips, and other marketing indulgences.    The travel/accommodation budgets alone for those events would be staggering.  Then add venue high, security, catering etc etc.  Mega Millions!!

So if the AFL need more money than NAB and other sponsors and TV rights to fund a minimum wage (approx $14,000 pp or $3.5m in total) then let it find the funds its own backyard!  Then I for one might take the AFL and other people a bit more seriously when they say the game can't afford it or words to that effect.

Here is something novel, let fans in to Women's games free for the first year and the AFL fund it by cutting back on their 'Events/Marketing' spend!!  Give fans a taste of it so that next season they sign up as members (then the actual Clubs benefit) and pay to go to games. 

Edited November 8, 2016 by Lucifer's Hero

[stuie 7,374]

4 hours ago, Stretch Johnson said:

Disingenuous.   Professional women's football hasn't been done before. 

The money will be there soon enough if the league does as well as expected. 

 

In whatever business you're in, does your salary fluctuate depending on the financials of the company? Mine doesn't.

 

[rjay 24,919]

4 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The AFL are directly earning extra:  NAB is sponsoring the Women's game directly to the AFL, not the clubs and not the players.  The AFL also gets direct income from the TV rights, additional to the AFL normal season TV rights income.  Obviously the AFL won't disclose what the $ value of these are but I bet it will be many, many times the $1.5 in salaries to ALL the Women players for a season.

BTW the Women's season will be stand alone, played February to March so they will attract crowds, TV rights and sponsors, in their own right and not as pre-game entertainment for the AFL 'main' games. The money is there, it is a matter of the AFL doing the right thing.

It's going to be interesting to see how this goes. From a personal point of view I'm not particularly interested in watching the womens game. I think it's a good thing that we are involved as a foundation club and will support our team from afar but that's about it for me.

Now I'm not really into popular culture as such and would be the last person to say I have a handle on what the public wants. I would be a terrible TV programmer, I would scrap the footy show and get rid of all those cooking shows and so called reality TV shows. All a raging success. Because of this I don't profess to know how the womens game will go.

I don't think we will really know where the womens game sits until after a couple of seasons at least. At that time we would know how much money is being brought to the table (currently the AFL's table) and how it should be divided.

Currently the game is riding on the back of the AFL. Without the AFL name there would be no TV, no sponsors. This has to mean something, so lets see where it settles and if it's the success many think then the rewards will follow.

 

[rjay 24,919]

10 minutes ago, stuie said:

 

In whatever business you're in, does your salary fluctuate depending on the financials of the company? Mine doesn't.

 

You must be a government worker 'stuie'...

[stuie 7,374]

5 minutes ago, rjay said:

You must be a government worker 'stuie'...

Ummmm no. You work a job where the company determines your salary by their financials rather than by your job classification Rjay? Might be time to find a new job mate...

 

[rjay 24,919]

7 minutes ago, stuie said:

Ummmm no. You work a job where the company determines your salary by their financials rather than by your job classification Rjay? Might be time to find a new job mate...

 

I work for myself 'stuie', which means I work for the people who want to pay for my services. If my service is not up to scratch or I am out of favour then it reflects in what I make.

If you work for a company (not government) then whether you understand it or not the financials of that company have an impact on your salary. If the company is failing for whatever reason then chances are you will get the ultimate pay cut.

[stuie 7,374]

2 minutes ago, rjay said:

I work for myself 'stuie', which means I work for the people who want to pay for my services. If my service is not up to scratch or I am out of favour then it reflects in what I make.

If you work for a company (not government) then whether you understand it or not the financials of that company have an impact on your salary. If the company is failing for whatever reason then chances are you will get the ultimate pay cut.

I work for a company and operate two separate self employed businesses also rjay, and all have standard industry accepted rates. You do know the women's AFL players aren't classed as self employed right?

I do understand if a company fails you may get the "ultimate paycut" but that's disingenuous given I was talking about salary fluctuations based on company performance. You do understand the concept of payscales, minimum rates, standard rates and on and on yeah?

 

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, stuie said:

 

In whatever business you're in, does your salary fluctuate depending on the financials of the company? Mine doesn't.

 

Disingenuous again. 

Obviously depends on the employment.  If the players believe they are worth more they can either choose a different employment option or take action to create a better deal. 

The women's league don't need patriarchal and Marxist commentators.   They operate within he system like everyone else.   Which I think was your argument to start with. 

They should and will get a better deal in time,  probably sooner than later. 

 

Edited November 8, 2016 by Guest

[rjay 24,919]

12 minutes ago, stuie said:

I work for a company and operate two separate self employed businesses also rjay, and all have standard industry accepted rates. You do know the women's AFL players aren't classed as self employed right?

I do understand if a company fails you may get the "ultimate paycut" but that's disingenuous given I was talking about salary fluctuations based on company performance. You do understand the concept of payscales, minimum rates, standard rates and on and on yeah?

 

 

31 minutes ago, stuie said:

Ummmm no. You work a job where the company determines your salary by their financials rather than by your job classification Rjay? Might be time to find a new job mate...

 

Follow your own line of thought 'stuie', I was answering your question about me. 

 

Edited November 8, 2016 by Demonland
Unnecessary baiting

[jackaub 1,402]

48 minutes ago, stuie said:

 

In whatever business you're in, does your salary fluctuate depending on the financials of the company? Mine doesn't.

 

Mine does

[stuie 7,374]

10 minutes ago, Stretch Johnson said:

Disingenuous again. 

Obviously depends on the employment.  If the players believe they are worth more they can either choose a different employment option or take action to create a better deal. 

The women's league don't need patriarchal and Marxist commentators.   They operate within he system like everyone else.   Which I think was your argument to start with. 

They should and will get a better deal in time,  probably sooner than later. 

 

Ok, well their employment is as top level footballers. Does 5K sound like enough to you?

As for your "they can either choose a different employment option" comment, well that's amazingly silly. You could also say things like "well if you don't like racism, then you can choose another country" or "if you don't like dogs being killed, don't go to the dog meat festival", you're free to ignore things that aren't right if that's your choice and tell women they have to "operate withing the system", but it's also my choice to say I don't think it's fair.

 

Edited November 8, 2016 by stuie

[stuie 7,374]

3 minutes ago, jackaub said:

Mine does

Really? So in your employment your company turns around and says "well jackaub we made a loss this quarter so we're going to need you to make some deposits..."

Don't think so.

 

[stuie 7,374]

15 minutes ago, Stretch Johnson said:

Disingenuous again. 

Obviously depends on the employment.  If the players believe they are worth more they can either choose a different employment option or take action to create a better deal.

 

"THE AFL Players’ Association will reject the league’s female pay proposal, insisting the $5000 rate for most of its talent is too low."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-players-association-rejects-female-pay-proposal-for-new-comp/news-story/006b11c2f8ad1869b47b8b16111c5063