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.
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.
Beau
Guest
Agreed! Women's sport is is just under utilised and not understood. I think the Matildas could be bigger than the Socceroos. If I had the money, I'd definitely invest in them. Give them the means to be the best in the world - which they are not far off from. Give them the resources to get out there, and promote the game and the team, and give them the higher profile they need to get a greater following. They are great to watch, and play with an attitude and spirit that aligns with the Australian public.
Chris
Guest
Agreed people who think women's sport is not huge are dreaming the biggest economies in the world china and the US women's football is massive
kurt
Guest
One day (or for that matter 1 tournament) is not the basis of a professional league. Professionalism only came around 10 years ago for the men. before that it wasnt getting the support to sustain it
Evan askew
Guest
Thanks!!!!
BigAl
Guest
Classic bit-each-way-beef there Fuss ! Are you beefing about Richmond lying about their membership figures OR Are you beefing about not many members turning up ?
Floyd Calhoun
Guest
Why 'ALLEGEDLY'? Something only you know?
Bondy
Guest
Finally someone's cottoned on to VFL , I think ... ( http://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/video-us-sportscenter-presenters-hilariously-dissect-afl-highlights-get-collingwood-team-name-wrong/story-fno61i58-1227434038233 ) ...
The artist formerly known as Punter
Guest
Kaks, but some people on here are saying there were millions watching the Women's WC final & I hear the crowd was quite big too. So how true was that comment!!!! Because people were watching women's sport on that day.
AR
Guest
Fuss is right - a crowd of 36,000 is terribly embarrassing. I'm sure an investigation is under way to address these woeful attendances.
Kaks
Roar Guru
lets be honest, MF, you left yourself open there for another one of Fuss's essays that a majority of people laugh at
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
"I just noticed that they did play before 36,000 at the MCG " The MCG has a capacity of 100k. Richmond has a Membership (ALLEGEDLY) of 70k. Why did only 36k turn up to watch 2 of the top 9 teams in the world? I've heard Aussies only want to watch the best in the world playing sport. Surely there are more than 36k AFL fans in Melbourne? What's going on?
Bondy
Guest
So the stadium for the GWS match still was over half empty ? .
Mister Football
Roar Guru
I just noticed that they did play before 36,000 at the MCG on the weekend, and attracted Fox ratings of 207k. Given that the AFL average Fox ratings are around 185k, that's an excellent rating. In case you're wondering, the average Fox ratings of the A-League's final home and away round was a paltry 37k, and that was for a mere five games.
Josh
Guest
Smoke and mirrors mate, the WSW W-League team is much more popular than the Manuka Midgets.
Kaks
Roar Guru
I had nothing to add to James's comment, after all he does speak the truth
j binnie
Guest
Punter (and James) - IMO one must never mix what is "good" football and what is "exciting" ,or should I say "entertaining" football. After watching and participating in the game for some 50 years I have in my mind what is "good " football and,who is a ' "good" player. As you both know football can be broken down into comprehensive elements,some skill orientated and some tactically orientated.Both these factors never take away from the excitement a game between 2 evenly matched teams can generate and that factor alone is a great drawcard to the game,so provided you don't try to compare Barcelona with Melbourne Victory in the skills department,both teams can provide entertainment as can teams at all levels of the sport. That does not mean they are both playing "good " football, it simply means the teams are evenly matched in all departments. Getting back to the Matidas they have improved in recent years but are still lacking in the creative department and it is in this area most teams can be found "wanting" when watching what I term as "good" football.Will they improve?,is there a Messi somewhere in the future? only time will tell. Cheers jb
James
Guest
good football can be played by people of all sexes and all ages, i have been as excited watching my 8 year old niece and nephew play on saturday morning as i have seeing my only manchester united game live (it was a 2-3 loss against middlesborough at old trafford in november 98, united then went on a 30 game not losing streak including the treble, i have still not completely forgiven my uncle for choosing that game to go to). but i and most other people would prefer to watch the premier league rather than the champsions league, la liga more than liga bbva and probably all of them rather than the a league because the quality of play is better. so yes i am sexist in that i prefer to watch the best men in the world rather than the best women in the world, but i am not sexist in that i dont care that i prefer to watch the best men, i watch the best quality football, that which is faster, more powerful, has a higher skill and everything else that im pretty sure everyone already knows. i honestly dont think most care that they are watching mens or womens playing a sport, they care about watching the best. lots of little guys have done awesome with football but whilst they were and are little they can still run faster, kick harder and use their bodies to take hits more easily than any woman. grace and skill and be learned so a woman can and im sure many of them have the same ability to trap a ball or see the pass or aim the pass or shot as any man but what cannot be learnt is that strength that men have. in mixed teams, girls are the better players as a whole until grade 8 or so because everyone has the same power, then puberty happens and guys just are stronger and the girls have no hope. i dont care that someone is a girl or a guy when watching football, i care about the highest level of play and the best women are the same as the best 16 year old boys and neither come close to the best 20 odd year old guys.
Fear the Smell
Guest
You're on par with the GWS Giants.
Bondy
Guest
AR Yes you did say that, and you also said the popularity to football globally had been forced upon those people ...
AR
Guest
Nope. Never said that Punter. And try to stay on topic.