Women's Pay

[PaulP]

Well said Ms Maven.

[Thryleon]

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.

[DJC]

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.

[LP]

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!

[kruddler]

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.

[Navy Maven]

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.

[mateinone]

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.

[PaulP]

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.

[mateinone]

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.

[LP]

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.