Women's Pay

[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.