The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Matildas undervalued by billionaire

6th July, 2015
Advertisement
Kyah Simon after scoring for the Matildas against Brazil. (Photo: AFP)
Expert
6th July, 2015
104
1871 Reads

The spotlight on the Westfield Matildas’ stellar performance in the Women’s World Cup attracted the attention of plenty of people who’d never give the game a second glance.

In one way, Football Federation Australia’s (FFA) Whole of Football Plan – to make football to be the biggest, most popular sport in Australia – appears to be on track.

Unsurprisingly, the spotlight also revealed that the Westfield Matildas earn a whole lot less than their Socceroo peers.

Their base day rate of $150 is 63 per cent of their male colleagues’ $240, a gender pay gap of 37 per cent – twice the national gap of 19 per cent. The disparity in match fees is even bigger, with their $500 per game a measly 8 per cent of the Socceroos’ $6500.

The Westfield Matildas’ full-year earnings in this bumper World Cup year are estimated at $52,000 (that’s their annual contract, daily touring allowance, match fees and a cut of the team’s 30 per cent share of prize money). They’re still way behind the average salaried Australian woman on $67,000.

When the issue was raised with the FFA, a spokesman acknowledged that the women’s game was strategically important but that pay increases relied on commercial contracts. His position was that the Westfield Matildas’ World Cup success would open overseas career pathways to players.

Realistically, no national sporting body positions itself as a nursery for the global sport. But for the Westfield Matildas and the FFA, that’s what’s happening. Within three weeks of exiting the World Cup, striker Kyah Simon had signed to the US Boston Breakers for a year and Elise Kellond-Knight to German Bundesliga FFC Turbine Potsdam for two. Meanwhile, their coach is talking up dreams of victory at the Rio Olympics in 2016.

Linking pay increases to commercial contracts makes the Westfield Matildas’ pay problem seem like a chicken and egg conundrum. Except that it’s not. It’s a strategic U-turn by the FFA and the sponsor.

Advertisement

When The Whole of Football Plan was launched in November 2014, FFA Chairman Frank Lowy gave it glowing praise, saying,“[It] will give us a roadmap and a unity of purpose to achieve our objectives.”

I’ve laboured the Westfield part of the Matildas’ name for a reason. Participation figures show that football is the number one sport in the 19-26 category. The game is in plum position to capture the lion’s share of an untapped sport market that spends big in retail – women. Their major sponsor, international shopping centre behemoth Westfield (the source of Lowy’s vast fortune), should be grabbing the opportunity with both hands.

As long as the Westfield Matildas have to live on less than the average wage (shop assistants in Westfield centres earn almost double), it’s inevitable that key players – the ones that sponsors like having their brand on – will leave the country just to earn a living wage. Which makes the other thing that sponsors like – having their brand on a winning team – less likely too.

The Westfield Matildas shouldn’t have to wait for commercial deals to materialise. Five billion dollar man Frank Lowy, chairman of Westfield and the FFA, should up the sponsorship to support the fundamental unity of purpose he lauds and keep team members in the country long enough to consolidate a winning side.

Time for Lowy and FFA to step up, walk the strategic talk, and enjoy the commercial benefits. Let’s call it enlightened self-interest.

close