Female players paid peanuts
ANYONE who watched the women’s AFL football match last Saturday would be in no doubt about the popularity and power of the game.
How brilliant were Moana Hope’s six goals? What about Katie Brennan’s goal in the first quarter? Or Darcy Vescio’s one-handed mark followed by a goal?
So why are these elite athletes being paid less than club players who have a few beers and kick a footy around a suburban oval on a Sunday arvo? And why doesn’t their pay packet include health insurance and a few pairs of footy boots?
If the Women’s League is ever going to become properly established, it needs to pay its players what they are worth and not as little as the AFL can get away with as seems to be the case now.
The AFL is getting plenty of kudos and positive press coverage out of its shiny new women’s league packed full of inspiring young athletes.
But it seems they’re already shortchanging the key talent – the players themselves.
AFL chief Gillon McLachlan – who took home $1.7 million last year – should be embarrassed by the fact that the entire women’s league is paid less than him.
The TV audiences for Saturday night’s women’s game – which peaked at 1.05 million people nationally and averaged 746,000 – show there is a substantial audience for women’s football.
Pleasingly, it was the highest-rating football match on a Saturday night this year.
It was also watched by more than 6000 people at the ground.
I think it’s plainly offensive that regular women players are being paid $5000, priority signings $10,000 and marquee players $25,000 for an entire season.
A salary of $5000 for a 22-week commitment – that includes pre-season training – equals $227 a week, and that doesn’t even take out the tax.
That’s not a wage, it’s an embarrassment.
The peak national women’s team should not be paid less than amateur clubs such as the Essendon District Football League, which wants a $250,000 salary cap for its top players next year.
It is also shameful that an entire club’s women’s team will earn $100,000 less than just one average AFL male wage.
We know male AFL players are paid 10 times or more, largely due to the AFL men’s six-year $2.5 billion broadcast agreement which will begin next year.
But I’ll bet even the people in the player’s association and the AFL negotiating the women’s pay deal will be paid more than the players themselves.
Let’s not forget that these women will have to sign up for a period of 22 weeks that will include playing, training, media and charity appearances.
It’s due to kick off next February, but already clubs are itching to put the women they’ve signed to work after the October draft.
If it is to succeed, the Women’s League must be fully professional from the outset, with players paid proper salaries to allow them to be fulltime athletes – like their male counterparts.
They must be paid a living wage and not one cent less. It’s not enough for McLachlan to justify the paltry pay packets by saying there’s no deal, no sponsorship and commerciality.
At this stage at least two games per round will be broadcast and sponsors with deep pockets such as Priceline Pharmacies and Harvey Norman have already signed up to some clubs.
The AFL needs to remember that the women’s professional sporting arena is already a very crowded space.
If the Women’s League wants to become properly established, it must be the first choice for the fittest, strongest and toughest female athletes, not the last.
Those deciding the pay packets must bear in mind the growing professionalism of other female sports such as cricket and basketball.
Elite female football players have finally been given what they have deserved for years: a national league of their own.
The AFL shouldn’t be allowed to get away with paying them peanuts just because the women are so grateful for the opportunity.
They should be treated like the professionals they are and paid a proper wage in line with their skills and the expectations placed on them.