Matildas used as a bargaining chip: Gallop

'On a performance basis, the Matildas should be paid more than their male colleagues (of course that will never happen)' Yeah, because performances in women's and men's World Cups are a like for like comparison *rolls eyes* For many reasons it isn't, and never will be. Reasons which I'm sure you're conveniently ignoring.

FFA using Aleague players and socceroos against the matildas! pathetic, how about the FFA board and exec pay for it. theres 5 board and exec people in the FFA over 1 million salary per year, for a non profit organisation that is a disgrace, your not even a player. 1 million executive is equivalent to 50 matildas!!! I would love to name and shame you all!

But of course you aren't taking sides, are you Lionheart?

Of course you have a side in this. Pull the other other one, as Arthur Daley liked to say. You are constantly critical of FFA. Equally obviously my views are opposed to yours. Adam Vivian is out of his depth and creating an almighty mess.

No Fuss, Gallop is misleading us here. The girls were not in agreement with what FFA offered them. The FFA are ready to sign any deal, that they've submitted. It still needs two signatures.

Well they generated some prize money from the recent world cup, of which they were promised part, but have not yet been paid. Same Asia Cup. Less than 1% of FFA revenue goes to the Matilda, that's less than David Gallop's salary. Considering a career, a young sports star at school could consider football, netball, cricket, or maybe a career at McDonald's. In terms of money earned and respect shown by employer, and fans it seems, the kid would be best to choose cricket. Next, Netball. Next best paid and respect shown, McDonald's. Least paid, and least demonstrated respect by employer and fans it seems, is football. Even if they get to a World Cup and Olympics, they're still the least paid. Less than he swimmers even. Personally, I think it's a disgrace and a sad indictment on the FFA, showing their lack of respect for players.

I think we've come a long way since then, those days when representing your country was 'not a job'. Do you know what these girls did before they went to Canada for this years World Cup? They stopped work and took up their weekend jobs of playing for Australia, for 6 months. And for that they were paid less than they could have earn if they'd taken a job at McDonald's instead. Is this the value we place on our national team players? Equate to less than they kids at McDonald's. Honest mate, I think it's time we all got with the program. The 21st century program.

@Lionheart If the 3 deals are not linked, then the Women's team would be on the plane to Detroit right now. The FFA was ready to sign the deal for the Matildas yesterday, but the PFA wanted the whole deal done; not just Matildas.

Fuss I know David Gallop said that. But there's nothing to suggest that on the PFA website, in their press releases. Where did you hear that the three were inseparably tied? The women have made a solid case themselves, Gallop is suggesting they're doing it for the men. My reading is one document, but three separate agreements.

Yes they deserve more money and talk of a 60 000 crowd in the USA would indicate that they are generating money, but please, representing your country is not a job.

Why because they want to be paid for their services? They are playing soccer because it's a job, if you were working and received less pay for doing the exact same thing as someone else would you be happy about it?

I don't think the issues with the Matilda's will affect the A-league season starting but they too have their own problems with FFA. PFA requests can be read http://pfa.net.au/?p=4980 around there somewhere.

The PFA have specifically stated all 3 deals are linked & must be inked together.

I think this is a David Gallop mind trick. He implies that all three are tied, linked in concrete and one can not move independent of the others, PFA are sacrificing the women for the men's conditions. This article offers another perspective http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/sep/11/matildas-player-strike-what-are-the-key-pay-demands-and-disputes-ahead and it seems to me that while being bundled together, there are naturally three different, independent strands to the agreement.

Rob, I'm 100% sure the PFA is bundling all 3 wage negotiations together: a) Men's National Team b) Women's National Team c) ALeague I've heard the PFA say this is occurring and yesterday, David Gallop's media statement said: "By way of background, it’s important to note that FFA agreed to the PFA’s suggestion that negotiating a whole of game CBA covering Socceroos, Matildas and Hyundai A-League players was the right approach." But, what's happened now (from what I'm reading), the FFA is happy to sign off on Matilda's wage increases by reallocating a small part of the Men's team's wage increase to the women, but FFA cannot accept the Salary Cap increase to HAL.

If that is true, Fuss, I agree, it is not appropriate. My view is that if the FFA comes up with a proper offer for the Matildas, the PFA should take it, once the Matildas players have been consulted and voted on it. If the male players cannot still agree, it should not be to the detriment of the women. My reading of it was that the PFA is holding out on agreeing to the men's deal in part out of solidarity with the women. If I am wrong about that, and the PFA are in fact taking an "all or nothing" approach, then the women need to instruct the PFA to de-couple the negotiations and make sure they get theirs.

Yes but why are they not financially viable? I can't help but think that maybe if they were paid to focus on football, then maybe the standard would lift, and then maybe the crowds and revenue would follow. That would take vastly improved promotion from the FFA, and it obviously represents a financial risk, but surely if football has huge participation rates amongst girls then that must constitute an untapped market. And it does seem a bit discriminatory to have ignored the women's game in favour of the men's for decades and then expect it to be miraculously financially viable. They've only just started a women's level NPL here in Victoria for next season. There's growth to be gained from. At the end of the day, if they're not financially viable, then pull the plug and let the women look after the game on their own. Either that or compensate them properly for their time and endeavour. With the financial argument you're either in or out, not stuck at $23,000.

@Rob Gremio I agree the women deserve to be paid more & I fully support the wage demands they've made. I'm pretty sure the FFA supports the wage demands the Matildas have made. The issue seems to be the PFA have bundled the Matildas' demands with the demands for ALeague & Socceroos. So, unless the FFA agrees to the $3m increase in the player Salary Cap over 3 years, the PFA won't sign the deal between the FFA & Matildas. Is that reasonable? Not to me.

The Matilda’s are being subsidized by the FFA to continue to remain even though the FFA loses money over them. Kaks - can you give us some figures on this please? A web link would be nice. I figure that the Matildas wage bill is around $480K at present.

I'm with you Slim. The public commentary from FFA show why the game is so slow in developing. I don't have a side in this, but can see an FFA that has no respect for its players and an FFA that has grander plans than the situation can bear. Both need to cool it.