Matildas set for equal pay under landmark deal

But why?

@Punter And I couldn't give a damn about yours.

I agree with your sentiments but not with your abysmal ignorance of English.

The truth is your truth, my truth is I really don't care about your comments.

Are they bringing in as many dollars as the mens team? If so, fair cop. Equal pay. If not, then a total politically (in)correct decision. Whatever the truth, the Matildas won't be getting a cent of my money. I don't watch womens sport. I don't care about womens sport. I just. don't. care Now all you mangina's, do your thing and pooh pooh my truths.

Michael your arguments are flawed. So you are saying that due to the fact that less women/girls are playing the game, they should always default to the mens? Can you explain how that makes sense? If you said that there were insufficient fields to house all players, and we have say, 75% of males and 75% of females using them, 25% miss out, then ok. But you are saying that men should always get the better facilities because there are more of them. Bizarre. And things become more bizarre when you advocate that for real equality then mix mens and womens together? I'm not sure why Im even responding to such nonsense. And if you understood what FFA is proposing you wouldnt be making silly comments like "its a disgrace that mens are losing blah blah blah". Do some more research before you get so outraged.

Tyke there is no convincing these emotional arguments. PS I wonder if they support men's netball getting equal pay to the womens' side? Or a big issue we have currently is the winner of a wheelchair tennis tournament doesn't get the same as someone like Djokovic. I think the winner of a wheelchair tournament should get 3million US, so what about that?

Chris the thing is, despite whatever emotional arguments there are, not as many women want to play something like soccer and therefore the player pool is a tiny fraction of the mens'. Therefore it's not justifiable to have better fields, change rooms etc. Although I don't even know what sort of state their facilities are. If you look at school sports, then simply there won't be as many girls wanting to play soccer compared to boys. Yes it's a bit unfair to the girls who are really interested and can't find a team but it's life. When I was at school the girls with a high interest/skill in soccer played on the boys' side if the girls were struggling for players to get the sport going and were just as good or better than many boys. If we want to have real equality, if they want the same income for their sport then we should mix boys and girls in sports. With Australian soccer, the men started out by being paid zero and had to create a market for the sport, and now the women want equal income when their market hasn't matured (nobody watches it in comparison to the men). I believe it's a digrace that the mens' side is losing income because the womens' side wants an equal share of the pie, when they are clearly not making any revenue.

That means that of the adults participating 88% are male, how could you possibly think that 88% of adult males play cricket. AFl has hardly any adults compared to kids.

"The first source I seen" - what exactly does that mean? And we were quoting from the AusPlay numbers. These are the official government figures that (hopefully) get used to allocate sporting facilities etc. So, can you show me the "first numbers I seen" that has you making the comment "cricket first then basketball"?

Oh you read numbers? I try to count them. I’m just going off the first source I seen.

"Just because you don’t comprehend something Chris, doesn’t make the person presenting you with information or logic “off the rails” or “hysterical”. However, it could mean you are just an i d i o t?" Not sure what it makes me, but at least I can read numbers. You on the other hand state that "No, that would be cricket, then basketball". What does that make you?

whilst your response is admirable in some respects, it is kinda ironic given you once liked then immediately sprung to the defence of a soccer poster on this forum who made disparaging remarks about the physical appearance of women playing in the first season of the aflw and before you get your knickers in a bunch, go back and check on your posting history - you did exactly as I said ..... so spare me your newly acquired support for women

Condescension is such a good look on you!

May I suggest you go to your local cinema and watch "The Joker". From all reports, it's a story & character that will resonate with you.

I think you have jumped to delusions. As is your right! —- And aren’t you the lucky boy to have never been falsely accused by twisted ideologies. —– And how is being paid above your value a positive news story?

Oh dear. Rowdy's anti-female rant is the Text Book example of the personality that I speculated would be attached to posers on this forum, who are: a) anti-this issue; and/or b) negative about all positive football issues

It's interesting......fake news etc. The Sports Australia data is survey based - so for example in the Tamworth (pop 62K) region they surveyed 141 adults and 34 children. In Armidale LGA (pop 30K) it was 80 and 13. Wagga (pop 62K) 144 & 29. Hornsby LGA (Pop 150K) 415 & 74. The data is based on minimum once a year participation - - and not necessarily organised. So - - imagine if our TV ratings were based on watching say.....channel 9 news once in the year and that was enough to score it a point. The benefit of this sort of survey data is comparison to previous surveys for trending of the data. It's not actuals. And just as you wouldn't decide an Australian federal election on 1% to 2% of the national vote then so too you need to take this survey data with a grain of salt. The codes have their actual participation rates based on registrations. The irony is I've seen people get up in arms about 'introductory programs' that may or may not last 6 weeks or more. And yet - - hang their hat on these Sport Australia stats that are based on a minimum participation of 'once'!!! Anyway - - just be careful about exactly what you assume these to portray as they aren't actuals.

No I had a witness, who unbeknownst to me at the time, said nothing happened. In a sworn affidavit. The accusations would’ve necessarily required hospitalization. I was accused of hitting a kid on the head with an iron bar, shoulder-barged him to the ground and open-hand slapped 10-12 times. A teacher’s aid declared no such thing. Despite much agitation by the mother and the principal no other kid came forth to back the lie. You see, I was good teacher. But the feminist principal was gunning for me and this was the perfect time to get me. There is a sub-organisation within the NSW Dept Ed, EPAC, their main brief is to get rid of men. As evidenced by the amount of men they have already got rid of. There are plenty of other men in the same boat. The deceptivores, of course, deny it happens. And as you may know saying this, in a public forum, puts me at risk of further Orwellian actions. —- JWs are not into getting rid of men out teaching. The feral version of feminism is.

Just because you don’t comprehend something Chris, doesn’t make the person presenting you with information or logic “off the rails” or “hysterical”. However, it could mean you are just an i d i o t?