Matildas cop 7-0 loss from the Newcastle Jets U/15’s boys team

If as many people tune in to watch the Matildas on TV and go to matches to watch the Matildas live, paying the same prices, then you're right. But they don't.

When I was in high school one of the Australian state women's teams played against my school's under 15 boys. The boys won convincingly. the game was preparation for a national women's carnival. This is not new. In sports with mass participation like netball and basketball the women are quite good. In sports like cricket, soccer etc where there is no mass participation you will find that the women's rep teams are no better than standard non selective boys' school teams.

plus it is soccer-man, not soccer-lady, that is scientific fact!

Yes, I watch the W League on TV when they're on. The finals series, particularly the semi MCY v Roar was a fantastic game. As a spectacle it was as good as, arguably better than, any of the A league finals. Saying that the men can beat the women, so the women don't deserve the same money is ridiculous. It's about the spectacle, and if as many people tune in to watch the Matilda and take pride in their wins, then they deserve equal money.

What's getting lost in this debate about viability of women's football is lack of depth in Matildas squad. Considering that 8 starters are abroad on international club duties their first choice defense was not playing in this match. Steph Catley, Laura Alleway and Alana Kennedy are having a very good tournament in the NWSL for different American clubs. However what's surprising is the lack of match readiness on part of the Matildas as the boy's team was able to move the ball around much better. Physical superiority in terms of power and speed is not the only deciding factor in football otherwise the Barca midfield of 170-175 cm / 68-72 kg would have been wiped off a long time back.

I didnt explain myself properly, i meant that the country should pay them the same when they are representing their country. Prize money should be based on how much each tournament makes, but when they are representing Australia i think that Australian football should pay them the same wages because they are doing the same work which doesnt apply to club football but i think should apply to representing your country. Each nation should treat their elite athletes, when representing their country, the same base wage pay wise. But i do think that male sports should, in a small way, help pay for female sports, not to the same level but i think that female professional sports should exist and ideally pay its own way but where it cant i think the male side should help.

Mark has it spot on. When you're pulling out of matches against the recently crowned world champions as a means of boosting your pay (ie last year's strike), yet you cost the FFA more than you earn it and your football is demonstrably of far lower quality than the Socceroos', it's kind of galling.

It depends on whether you view the two as producing the same product/service or not. A good way to judge this is if they are part of the same labour pool or not. Using your example of electricians, I think the one working for a rare earth mining company and the one working for an iron ore company are producing the same service, albeit in a different context. They are in the same labour pool because they could transfer between the two (ie. one working in iron ore could transfer to rare earths). Because they produce the same service and are in the same labour pool, they would be paid equally (or very close to it). Taking that example to a slightly ridiculous extreme, you would expect electricians working on space shuttles to earn more than household electricians. The two are producing different services - one requires significantly more training and expertise than the other. They are not part of the same labour pool - household electricians couldn't just get a job as a space shuttle electrician overnight. Applying these concepts to football...the key question is whether men's and women's football is the same product? I accept that some people, as you seem to, argue they are doing the same work so they are producing the same product. However I disagree. I see men's and women's football as distinct products, each with their own market factors that influence remuneration available to the workers producing these products. No-one seems to dispute that male and female footballers are in completely different labour pools.

Working for someone as a tradie is different to working as a professional athlete which is more or less in the entertainment industry. Sport is dictated by supply and demand, the more demand the more the supply costs. This is why a Socceroo's world cup qualifier will cost you more than a Matilda's world cup qualifier to go and watch.

Follow that logic through and a sparky working for a rare earths mining company should get paid many times more than a sparky working for an iron ore company due to the collapse of the iron ore prices. If the Matildas do significantly less work than the Socceroos whilst under contract with the FFA (on and off the field) then fine, but otherwise they are doing the same job, representing the country in football. Their "outcomes" are measured in their ability to act as catalysts for football development in the country, a vital component of which is women's participation in the sport. I accept the fact you disagree with this position however it is the way I see it.

If the men and women earn similar prizemoney for participating in international tournaments and Socceroos and Matildas TV rights go for similar amounts, then sure they should be paid the same. If not, and let's be honest, in reality they're not close, then no. Pay should reflect productive capacity (ie. revenue earning ability). I expect we will never agree on this issue, and in a free country you're perfectly entitled to your point of view. I, respectfully, disagree with your view (assuming you are also the Chris below) that professional male sports should subsidise female sports.

I think they should be paid the same though when they are representing their country. Not when they are representing club but i think there does need to be more equality with pay for world cups from countries, not from the world cup itself thats silly.

I think you're misunderstanding the issue. No-one is seriously questioning that men and women are different. The Matildas want us to accept the inherent differences between men and women which mean that our national women's team can be beaten by a club side's 14-15 year old boys team. Then the Matildas want equal pay with our national men's team (the Socceroos). They can't have it both ways.

This Matilda coach called the 16 year old Newcastle boys players "at the peak of their powers" to try and mitigate his dismal performance. Since when are male athletes at the peak of their powers at 16? When? Never is the word. He's right about one thing though, men (or nearly adult boys) will usually beat women in a sporting contest, be it netball, basketball, athletics, rugby, football or tennis (obvious tennis example aside!) Can't beat that extra speed and strength.

Silly statement from van Egmond, i would think one of the better 15/16 year old boys would be able to hold their own against most of the better ladies in the sport. The only reason that female professional sports exist is because we are being sexist, men are just genetically better at most sports, we have an unfair advantage. But this is one of the many instances where sexism is a good thing. In most sports most women will never be able to compete with even journeymen players but who cares, we are not bloody equal so comparing sexes is stupid. Male sports should help pay for the stadiums and other facilities that the womans side of sport play in and we should continue to encourage professional female sports but we need to stop thinking they are in any way comparable.

A very good 15 year old male state 100m free swimmer would break the women's world record in the same event. This is a simple fact!!!!

The simple fact is that they could be beaten by an average local men's team. The truth the standard of women's soccer is terrible.

Spot on. Van Egmond is exactly right when he says "It's all relative". That should also apply to their pay.

Yeah I can't see it either. Must've been moderated.

I don't really understand what people expect. It is well known that men are different to women in everything, certainly in sport. People are trying to push this agenda that women and men are exactly the same, but we all know they are not, this is just a friendly reminder.